Talk:Bryan R. Holloway

Fashion blog and young earth creationist
This information has been repeatedly removed from the article by probably the same person using different IPs: one example. I am not sure if it should be included but I have reinstated it because it is sourced. Does Youtube count as a reliable source, and should a blog that may or may not belong to this person be mentioned in the article? Those seem to be the points of disagreement here. Cathfolant (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed it again. I seem to recall that if one is not sure about including material in a BLP it should be left out until there is consensus to reinstate rather than the other way round. Anyway, has anyone got an idea on what should be done? Cathfolant (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure: I wrote the original section about Holloway's alleged fashion blog.

All of the IPs of the people resposible for removing the post originate in North Carolina, which indicates that this is a cover up!

Whether or not the 'accusations' are true or not, they are a legitimate source of interest around Holloway as a political figure and they contain references to mainstream news sources.

Let's flip this around:

What's a good argument for removing this section? ollee (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see. The sources may not be reliable. Also, WP:BLP says this:
 * Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
 * Neutral point of view (NPOV)
 * Verifiability (V)
 * No original research (NOR)


 * We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
 * If the information may not be true, therefore, it is better to leave it out until a reliable source is found to support it. To me, Youtube - used to source one statement - is not really a source, and if that is the only source for something in a BLP in particular it should be left out. (Note that WP:RS says nothing about Youtube.) About the fashion blogger info, it is not conclusive since the two sources given contradict each other (one says he definitely owns the blog while the second does not). The news stories could be considered reliable sources, but since it is not conclusive and the blog seems to have a slightly bad reputation (i.e. the info could be damaging) I would go with leaving it out.
 * Keep in mind also that the article is tagged as a BLP that needs extra citations; we should therefore be especially careful about what to include in it. (Well, we should anyway.) Cathfolant (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind also that the article is tagged as a BLP that needs extra citations; we should therefore be especially careful about what to include in it. (Well, we should anyway.) Cathfolant (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)