Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive128

Rick Perry
Under Governor, Paragraph 7 indicates that Perry's tort reform reduced medical malpractice insurance costs by 30%. The New York Times article cited lists the decrease as 21%. Additionally, the article doesn't offer the 21% as fact, but rather quotes a known tort reform advocate who offers the number without citing his source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjustmenthandle (talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the correct course of action was to remove the material, as you did, as opposed to correcting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, someone restored your removal. I have edited the material to conform to the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul London
The last line of of Paul London's biography, in the section titled "personal life" alleges Mr. London "has admitted to having a affair with Brian Kendrick". This phrase was added to a sentence about his having a romantic relationship with Ashley Massaro (a female), and the cite was for a note about Ms. Massaro.

This "addition" appears to be malicious - there is no source cited, and no indication elsewhere in the article that Mr. London was romantically involved with Mr. Kendrick or any other man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.36.24.77 (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Reverted the recently added vandalism, thank you for the heads up. This page could probably be on a few more watchlists since the vandalism went undetected for about a week. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Mark Duggan
A significant number of both delete and keep !vs are referencing BLP1E. How does BLP1E relate to a dead person?--Cerejota (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of those comments were by editors who confused WP:BLP1E with WP:BIO1E, perhaps an understandable error by less experienced editors. A few editors, though, made the valid point that his partner and their children were the subject of unwarranted attention in the article.  Last time I looked, discussion of those individuals had been removed.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the article is not about his family, BLP1E issues would resolved via editing, not deletion, correct? Also, some of those making BLP1E arguments are indeed experienced editors - it seems to me that rather than a simple mistake, there is a generalized misunderstanding of what BLP means. --Cerejota (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article shifted from a biography, arguably a BIO1E, to a "Death of . . ." article in the midst of the long and messy debate. That rendered some early opinions moot.  Of course, some editors get emotional, on both sides, and misapply policy in this type of debate.  It would be wonderful if half that energy could be devoted to improving the article.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed!--Cerejota (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

mohamed faarax aidid
somalia has never had a president since mohamed siad barre (1991) - ali mahdi mohamed was a self-declared one but for a short period of time between january and june 1991. Please remove mohamed faarax aidid and hussein mohamed faarax aidid from somalian presidents' list. There is no somalia central state since 1991. Merci

(Undent)You make a good point. I have left a note at the list's talk page, pointing here to BLPN. Following are excerpts from the Concise Encyclopaedia of World History by Carlos Ramirez-Faria (Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 2007): "Somalia fragmented into warlordist fiefs in 1991 and Barre had to leave the country....Since 1995, Somaliland [northern Somalia] has been stable with its own president, Mohammed Haji Ibrahim Egal....Elections gave the presidency of Somaliland to Dahir Rayale Kahin, re-elected in 2003....A count by a reporter in November 2003 put at five the number of would-be presidents of Somalia." So, it looks like you're correct that Barre was the last president, and the others should come off the list.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, User:86.89.241.108 is incorrect. Somalia has had several internationally-recognized presidents since the outbreak of the civil war in 1991, including Abdiqassim Salad Hassan (the former Minister of Interior) and Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed (the former President of the autonomous Puntland region). The passage above refers to the various militia leaders, such as Ali Mahdi Mohamed and the late Mohamed Farah Aideed, who, in the period immediately following the outbreak of the war, competed between themselves for power and in the process declared themselves president. Somalia has also had various internationally-recognized federal bodies since that period, including the Transitional National Government and the current Transitional Federal Government. Middayexpress (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, thanks for responding here. Aidid's Wikipedia article says: "Aidid then declared himself President of Somalia in June 1995,[4] but his government was not internationally recognized." If that's correct, then Aidid shouldn't be listed as a President of Somalia, should he?  Aidid is not a living person, but he still needs to come off the list, along with anyone else (living or dead) who was not internationally recognized.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Aidiid indeed was not actually internationally-recognized as president. And anyone who was not internationally-recognized as president should be removed from the list. Middayexpress (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * International recognition is different from a country's recognition as per its constitution. For instance, some conflict regions are not accepted internationally, but accepted by some neighbouring countries. It could be mentioned in the "Notes" in List of Presidents of Somalia. So, the argument carries less weightage here. --Freknsay (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For instance, Azad Kashmir is the Pakistani administered part of Kashmir. This is not internationally recognised as a seperate country or state, since India is claiming that this region belongs to them. This region is only recognized by Pakistan, and not by any other country or UN.
 * It has its own elected president, prime minister, legislature, high court, and official flag. Azad Kashmir has it own Judiciary as well with Khawaja Shahad Ahmad as its present Chief Justice.
 * In wiki, we have List of Presidents of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, even though this is not internationally recognized. Just my thoughts.. --Freknsay (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for that. I think the situation is a bit different, though, since we're talking about self-proclaimed presidents of an internationally recognized country as opposed to leaders of territories (sub-national or otherwise) with little or no recognition. The men Anythingyouwant alludes to above, Aideed and Ali Mahdi, are militia leaders from the Somali Civil War. They both claimed to be President of Somalia after they had managed to topple the regime of the former President and long-time strongman Siad Barre. As far as I'm aware, neither of the two rebel leaders was ever recognized as President by the international community. They just wielded a lot of influence locally. That's I think what Anythingyouwant was getting at. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If there was someone who was not recognized as president of Somalia by the international community, but was recognized as president of Somalia by virtually the whole country of Somalia, then that might be worth noting at the list, but as far as I know such a person never existed in Somalia. Sometimes (e.g. in 2003), as many as five people in Somalia were claiming to be president of the country at the same time.  The Kashmiri situation is quite different.  The Somaliland subregion of Somalia has had widely-recognized presidents even when the whole country did not have a widely-recognized president, and indeed we have a List of Presidents of Somaliland, but those people shouldn't be listed in List of Presidents of Somalia, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There already is a List of Presidents of Somaliland, just as there is a List of Presidents of Puntland (whose presidents are also widely recognized). At any rate, it would appear that Ali Mahdi Mohammed did enjoy some recognition as President within the international community: "at the second Djibouti conference (Aideed boycotted the first) held between 15 and 21 July 1991, Ali Mahdi was elected interim President of Somalia for a period of two years[...] Because of the legitimacy conferred on Ali Mahdi by the Djibouti conference, his government was recognized by several countries, including Djibouti, Egypt, Italy, and Saudi Arabia" . His former cohort Aideed, on the other hand, didn't. So perhaps, given your assertion above, Ali Mahdi should be re-added to the list. Middayexpress (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I can figure out, Ali Mahdi Mohammed was inaugurated as President in August 1991 and Aidid pledged to support him. They even signed a cooperation agreement.  But by October 1991 Aidid rejected the legitimacy of the government.  So, I suppose we could list Ali Mahdi as President, but figuring out the end date may be kind of difficult.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sounds convincing. Thanks --Freknsay (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Luke Evans (actor)
User "Acerroad" keeps deleting properly sourced and verified information regarding the personal life of this individual. The section should read:

Luke Evans came out as gay in an interview with The Advocate in 2002.[3] In September, 2010, however, it was reported that he was dating a woman, Holly Goodchild, the former personal assistant of singer Charlotte Church.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe1958 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Acerroad is correct to delete this. Evan's sexuality is of no relevance to the article: see WP:BLPCAT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Evans' himself spoke openly about his personal life in 2002. If this is removed, then all information regarding the personal lives of Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, and Jennifer Aniston should be removed, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe1958 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, you cite WP:BLPCAT, yet the information about Evans' personal life fits the regulations stated there: he himself admitted as such in a reliable source and it was part of his notable achievements early as an actor, starring in the musical Taboo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe1958 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that you yourself cite two contradictory sources, how can he possibly be unambiguously be categorised as 'gay'? As for Taboo, I fail to see the relevance: playing Shylock doesn't make you Jewish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have received a warning for engaging in an "edit war" and for making more than three revisions in a 24-hour period, which is untrue. I did not make more than 3 revisions in a 24-hour period. And the revisions I made were mostly to add proper references and citations to make the "Personal life" section conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Someone keeps deleting any reference to a publicly available interview that Mr. Evans did with The Advocate in 2002. The article is from a reputable source and verifiable. The article is only one of several magazine articles that Evans did over a period of several years in which Evans spoke at great length about being a publicly out gay actor. I don't understand why this information keeps getting removed when it is public record, quotes Evans himself, and comes from verifiable sources.JoeBotX (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be anything notable about his sexual preferences. And Jonny likes sex with men? Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to argue that there's nothing notable about his sexual orientation (not preferences), then you would have to argue that there is nothing notable about the sexual orientation of Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell, Ricky Martin, Neil Patrick Harris, or any other similarly out gay celebrity. So why aren't references to their sexual orientation being removed from their Wiki entries? The inconsistency is glaring. I'm sorry, but Evans' sexuality is notable, for reasons that Evans himself spoke about in the Advocate article (and other sources). In that article, he explained that his being out helped give gay teens and other aspiring actors have "hope for the future." He said he had received letters from fans praising his decision to come out. This is all public knowledge and public record. It's not a "dirty secret."JoeBotX (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * orientation/preference(whatever) some peoples sexuality does become a part of their notability, this does not look like one of those cases to me. It is clearly not a dirty secret in any way - sexuality is normal in all things on the planet its just that it is rarely encyclopedic-ally notable. Also the claim of helping overs come out as being the notable thing, that is quite common actually. Johnny_Weir - if only one person can be helped by my coming out....as for support letters from fans, that doesn't seem anything but normal to me either. Weir's sexuality was very high profile and there had been massive speculation about it. Here in Oct 2010 he seems to have changed his mind/preference/orientation and was reported to be in a relationship/dating a woman. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is this not "one of those cases"? Evans was publicly out to his family, his fans, the press, and the public for years. He has spoken about it at length in interviews with The Advocate, The Gay Times, QX Magazine, and other sources (most of which are freely available online). We're not talking about one quote or one article here. It is notable because he chose to make it notable. He chose to make it an issue. As for him changing his mind, I agree that if The Advocate article is mentioned, the article saying that he is now dating a woman should also be mentioned. But when I tried to also include a properly cited reference to that article in the Wiki entry, it too was removed.JoeBotX (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to see those other interviews he has given about his sexuality, I have only seen the advocate, are the others simply reporting that one interview from 2002? - have you got the links to them? I don't see his sexuality as noteworthy really but others might, if you present other interviews asserting more notability to it you may have a case - if his gay comment earlier is mentioned it clearly stands to reason that if that is notable then having a relationship with a woman is also notable - I don't think either are notable but lets see what others think. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the 2004 QX Magazine article, Luke Goes Hardcore. It's a pdf file of the entire issue, and I should warn you that there's some graphic content elsewhere in the magazine. The article talks about how being out has affected his career as an actor. In the article, Evans says, "I wasn't happy living a lie as I'd been living a lie for the majority of my life, so performing in Taboo was a good time to come out, and it hasn't bothered my career at all." The article also says "Luke does gay very well, which is not surprising, but it was encouraging to hear that he's never experienced any negative effects from being 'out' as an actor." I haven't seen the Gay Times article, but it preceded The Advocate article and is referenced in the first paragraph of the Advocate article.JoeBotX (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, section seven of the QX article, supports a pretty out gay man position, still not really anything that puts some bones on a reason to report his sexuality - I am of the position that being gay is not notable, others may support inclusion but to me being gay is not encyclopedic notable and neither is being orientated "straight" - which we never mention - Jonny really liked women. In 2002 and 2004 Evans was an "out" gay man and commented he came out for himself and hoped that it would help other gay men to come out. In 2010 he was reported to be dating a woman. - ... Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your last 2 sentences seem to sum it up nicely. The problem is that anytime I or any other user has tried to add something like those 2 sentences, it has been quickly deleted, usually by user Acerroad, who has made 35 edits to the page, but now also by user PitViper26. Usually, no explanation is given. Looking at the revision history for the page, the removal of any reference to Evans' sexuality or the Advocate article has been going on since October 2010 (one month after the article that said he is dating a woman appeared in the press). So, in the end, I guess this whole debate is pointless because even if something is added, it will simply get deleted again and the user who added it will be tagged for engaging in an "edit war."JoeBotX (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't give up now, your contributions to this discussion are very beneficial. If you can create an addition with the cites, post it below, for support or oppose inclusion comments here and we can see a consensus among a few commenters then we could defend the removals and protect the article and block drive by users that repeatedly removed the consensus addition without discussion. As you say, this has been disrupting the Biography for over six months - we really need to end that one way or the other through this discussion here. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have to give up because I don't have time, and I'm not that invested in it. However, my recommendation would be that PitViper26's edit of 15:02, 7 August 2011 be undone, reverting the page back to the 03:25, 6 August 2011 revision by Acerroad. Acerroad is the user who has usually removed any reference to the Advocate article, or anything else about Evans' private life, sometimes within minutes of it being added. However, in his/her most recent edit, Acerroad allowed the reference to the Advocate article to remain intact, but added a couple of sentences about Evans now wanting to keep his private life private. Those sentences are a bit opinionated, but maybe they help clarify things. It had seemed that everything was resolved until PitViper26 then proceeded to remove the "Personal life" section. Undoing PitViper26's edit and reverting to Acerroad's most recent edit might be a compromise that would satisfy all users (except, obviously, PitViper26).JoeBotX (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If they've been confirmed by reputable news sources, why do they keep getting deleted? Do people want to censor the fact that Luke Evans is gay? AfterElton even ran a story on this today, talking about the Wikipedia article and showing screencaps of the page to two of its revisions. Can't we just include The Advocate quote, about him being openly gay (which is indisputable&mdash;he came out, that's not made-up) and the fact about him now dating a woman, as reported by WalesOnline? Why does it have to be so complicated? Leave something like those above two sentences, protect the page against whoever's edit warring for whatever reason, and leave it. He's either gay or bisexual to me, as in, it's kind of irrevocable that you speak about being out and proud basically, and now according to some fashion industry expert, he's dating her? It's notable. 220.239.157.22 (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that my suggestion for how to resolve this issue was simply ignored. It could have avoided this whole ugly mess. Off2riorob asked me for a suggestion. I offered one -- revert to Acerroad's last edit -- Acerroad being the user who has in the past removed all references to the Advocate article, but in his/her most recent edit was OK with it, as long as there was also a mention of how Evans now tries to keep his private life private. It appears that what I said earlier was true: "I guess this whole debate is pointless because even if something is added, it will simply get deleted again and the user who added it will be tagged for engaging in an "edit war."JoeBotX (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue. We have two very reliable sources where Evans says he is gay and furthermore, links its strong relevance to his acting career. We have another reliable source (Wales Online) reporting that he is in a heterosexual relationship; WalesOnline is reliable, even if they are clearly publishing churnalism floated by a publicist (but this is not relevant to the strength of the citation). AfterElton are also very reliable, and have published a synthesis of this discrepancy and a reliably-attributed comment from Evans' management where they more or less admit to telling him to keep quiet about being gay. However, that inference is for the reader to draw. As of my last revision, the article is entirely factual and not contestable by crying BLP.Zythe (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a BLP issue - what is notable about this persons sexual preferences/outlook? Nothing has been presented here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What isn't? You have the burden of proof, unfortunately. Your last edit was to remove highly-cited and interesting material (ie. notable in its implications for how management handles celebrities' sexualities in public, and for how Evans related his sexuality to his acting process in 3, possibly 4 interviews with gay magazines) and restored a completely unverified section about his Early Life which was violation of BLP. So I don't think you're actually debating policy, but you have an objection to the content which remarks on his being gay (or not gay - we cannot officially 'categorise' him as long as there is contradictory evidence). I would contend that reverting you isn't even 3RR because you are making clearly disruptive edits based on an assumption that his personal life is not relevant to Wikipedia (a personal conviction), which you can take up as a topic of discussion cocerning what Wikipedia is for. But you can do that elsewhere. It's not about consensus because there are clear facts and policies in play.Zythe (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be interesting to you but peoples sexuality is not generally notable. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your opinion is moot, because it doesn't affect Wikipedia's remit. And it frequently is notable when it surrounds how a management company suppresses information and keeps up the publicity machine. If you have any declared interest in this page -- not that I'm assuming bad faith -- I would argue that trying to stall it in violation of Wikipedia policy will only draw further attraction to you from not just gay press, but Nationals. A good story for a left-wing National would be how in the run-up to a big film, a publicist company is trying to bury Internet evidence of their commodity being or having been openly gay. It would be best to let Wikipedia sit, unnoticed by the majority of people, and not attract spotlights.
 * You don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to policy and to try and revert the page, as you admit on my talk page, continually for six months is not fair practice. There isn't a single good reason why this page should be under dispute because this is not a BLP issue whatsoever.Zythe (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Demanding to focus without valuable educational detail on someones sexual preference is a BLP issue. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You 1) refuse to acknowledge anything I have said, and 2) don't seem to know i) what BLP is and ii) what Wikipedia is for. This is getting embarrassing for you.Zythe (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I laugh at your claim of embarrassment. Please stick to the content dispute and focus on that, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As cited and discussed previously, the BLP policy says that if the person in question has stated the fact is true and its quoted in a reliable source, it's fine. As an up and coming actor in an industry where homosexuality has been and still frequently is covered up and hidden, it is very notable. The fact that an individual editor may not find it notable does not, ipso facto, mean it is not notable writ large. If you don't understand the social context or notability of the issue, do some research right here on wikipedia. See, e.g., Celluloid Closet. If you think it's not relevant period, then please begin removing such references from the following articles: Rock Hudson, Ellen Degeneres, John Barrowman, Rachel Maddow, [Ricky Martin]], Clay Aiken, David Bowie... eh, you get the idea. Anyway, better get to it, unless it some cases it is notable. Otherwise, the content and sourced material should go back in. croll (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

the addition
In 2002 interview with The Advocate, Evans identified himself as an out gay man and stated "I knew that even though my part was a straight character everybody knew me as a gay man, and in my life in London I never tried to hide it.... So I thought, 'Well, I'm going to have to be open. It's who I am. And if people don't like it, then I don't want their jobs.'"
 * - Personal life


 * - http://books.google.com/books?id=v2QEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA55&ots=ryIXRPJTFQ&dq=luke%20evans%20gay&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false

In September 2010 however, WalesOnline reported Evans as dating "fashion industry marketing expert" Holly Goodchild


 * - http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/09/19/tamara-drewe-star-luke-evans-lands-love-and-musketeer-role-91466-27296101/

AfterElton.com contacted Evans' management, who declined to clarify his sexuality and stated "I do not comment on my client's personal lives in the media. As for Luke, he did so once, a long time ago when he was an inexperienced, young actor and now with maturity and hindsight, he has learned not to engage the press in his personal life again


 * - http://www.afterelton.com/people/2011/08/luke-evans-in-or-out-gay-man

comments as regards the notability /privacy issues of the subjects sexuality
Corrected. Because it's annoying the hell out of me and betrays some bias/perceptions here. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

add comments here please. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTABILITY IS A PHONY ISSUE. This is entirely appropriate for a phony "encyclopedia" that doesn't bother to adhere to facts or its own policies. Wikipedia's own policy on "notability" states that "notability" applies to whether or not an article is to be included, but NOT to the contents of the article. Yet Wikipedia has censored the article for this reason. It's not the first time Wikipedia has misapplied the so-called "notability" "standard" in this way. The reality is that Wikipedia has no standards. This is one of many reasons why serious authors no longer participate here, and why no respected academic institution will permit a student to use this atrocious children's "encyclopedia" as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You're trying to make this an argument about notability in general of romantic relationships which you wouldn't be doing if the actor in question wasn't gay. But unfortunately in almost every case, Wikipedia does describe these things as notable. Wikipedia is not an educational tool, as you seem to mistakenly suggest above. It is simply an encyclopedia. One could even argue that this case has special notability given the bizarre actions of the record company and for that matter, coverage of the editing of this Wikipedia page. But alas, it doesn't have a notability problem. And it's not a BLP issue in the first place, sorry. Someone close this discussion.Zythe (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * it is notable. it is very notable in so many other living persons pages as well. this guy is going to be in a few big movies coming out soon. and now its getting even more notable, with afterelton doing a story about it. i think by not including the multiple reliable sources, readers are done a disservice. are you sure you realize how many times this has come up before? it is pretty standard.... 207.238.152.3 (talk)


 * In almost every case, it is not important enough to place into a biography. Nor is religion. Nor is ancestry. Biograpies, of all things, should focus on the life of a person dealing with matters of importance to their life. A revolutionary concept. And it is absolutely a WP:BLP issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the actor repeatedly affirms how much being openly gay is important to him and how being gay affected his choice to be an actor, his acting process, his choice of roles, and also how his roles have affected his decisions to be out. Then, the subsequent sources are notable with regard to the much wider (academically notable) issue of how gay actors are professionally managed. Essentially this is a de-gaying effort. This wouldn't be an argument on the page for Brad Pitt.Zythe (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS only relate to categories, as does the 'only mention sexuality if it's notable to the subject's public life' clause. I don't think any of this is notable to Luke Evans public life, even if he is publicly out. I really don't see how its any business of Wikipedia if someone like Duncan James is bisexual, essentially coming out before being outed by for at the hands of The News of the World. That someone's private sexual preferences can be discussed at length in BLPs seems very off to me. This applies to content and cats. If a subject is a LGBT advocate, that is one thing. If they are LGBT person going about their private business, that is another. How not? Span (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're applying your personal values to a subject irrespective of policy. The fact is, it is notable to their lives and to wider issues -- cultural, political and philosophical ones at that. And we even, in this case, have a published synthesis (by AfterElton) affirming that very notability I'm describing.Zythe (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal values are meaningless here. Subjects sexuality is usually not notable - Elton Johns sexuality is high profile and extremely notable, this persons is not and adding jonny said he was attracted to men in 2002 but in 2011 he was dating a women is just not encyclopedic-ally notable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly given evidence of notability (eg, Evans' own declarations of its relevant to his career, plus published synthesis attesting as much). If it is Verifiable, published to Reliable Sources, and written in a style where there is No Original Research, then the ONLY dissenting voice is an echo chamber of people saying "People's sexuality is not relevant." But you yourself restored BLP-violating information about where he went to school, in contrast, which is a complete triviality and one that obviously doesn't bother you being there. So the issue is that you object SPECIFICALLY to sexuality being mentioned at all when BLP doesn't give you any specification other than you don't commit libel on somebody by using unverifiable information. And yes, the discrepancy is wonderfully notable. Because it illustrates something about the industry; the inference is for the reader to draw, of course. What will you do when the Guardian's interest is piqued? Does it become "notable" enough for you then? Zythe (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a move to cast figures like Evans and Duncan James as gay advocates - foregrounding their sexuality in support of the gay community. There maybe high profile reports in the Advocate, AfterElton and the tabloids. That does not speak to notability on Wikipedia. Span (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That, as you call it, "a published synthesis (by AfterElton) affirming that very notability " http://www.afterelton.com/people/2011/08/luke-evans-in-or-out-gay-man just looks like a gay blog post with no editorial control to me. Posted today by http://www.afterelton.com/user/19..Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * note - the Evan's wikipedia article is mentioned in that www.afterelton.com/user/19 blog post from today and also discussed in the comment section also. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * AfterElton.com is not merely a "gay blog". It is an award-winning news outlet whose stories have on more than one occasion been picked up by the international press and which is recognized as a reliable source on Wikipedia. In the interest of full disclosure, I have written articles for the site and I can promise that the content is subject to complete editorial control. The person who posted the article in question is Michael Jensen, who is also the Editor-in-Chief. 70.226.162.163 (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Who gives a shit? Back in the 80s the request from gays was don't label us. We are actors not gay actors, we are musicians not gay muscisans, we are teachers not gay teachers. They were right back then and the activists are wrong now. Enough of the labelling fucking crap OK. These people do not exist for Michael Jensen, or anyone else, to abuse for there own ends. John lilburne (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so hostile, but your information is not accurate. In the 1980s the "request" was to be treated with dignity and respect as gay people. Including information about an individual's sexuality that is sourced directly to the subject is not "activism" and it isn't "abuse". 70.226.164.175 (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

* If a gay man gives multiple interviews in which he states that he is a gay man then there should be no issue with saying so in his article. Saying that a gay person should only be identified as a gay person if hir sexuality is "notable" is demeaning. It is true that biographies rarely if ever directly state that the subject is heterosexual. That is because the vast majority of people assume that a person is heterosexual unless it is specifically known not to be the case. Information that directly or indirectly discloses a subject's heterosexuality (who they've married, who they've dated, etc.) is routinely included in biographies and in most if not every instance leaving that information out if it's known would be considered a defect. Yet reliably sourced, verifiable information that indicates homosexuality or bisexuality is deleted, often with the insulting claim that "sexuality isn't relevant". As a gay man who's been battling for equality for decades I can damn well guarantee that my sexuality is relevant to me and it's apparently relevant to the millions of people in this country who have over those same decades voted to implement or retain sodomy laws, voted to strip away basic civil rights protections, voted to strip away even minimal domestic partnership rights and voted to make same-sex marriage unconstitutional. BLP demands that biographies of living persons contain only information that is verified in reliable secondary sources. There are multiple reliable secondary sources that discuss Luke Evans' sexual orientation. BLP does not require that the information be separately "notable" or "relevant" and even if it did those selfsame sources clearly show that Evans' sexual orientation has had an effect on his life and career. There is no valid justification for removing the information and doing so is naked bigotry whether the person censoring the article realizes it or not. William Bradshaw (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Ugh. Evans is quoted as saying how it is VERY important to him to be out at an early age and to not have this skeleton in his closet. No one is trying to pigeonhole him or for that matter Duncan James as a gay activist. (Duncan James' outing does have added notability given it was by NoTW who probably hacked him, but that's a side-issue.) You're two editors who are determined to make it so that these people's personal lives which they have adamantly disclose openly should be kept hidden, and you're keen to malign someone like me as a myopic gay activist when I am in fact just a stickler for policy which states three issues: WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.Zythe (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well put. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Zythe. Off2riorob and Spanglej, whether you both like it or not, this information will continue to be re-added until it sticks. That's not a threat or any such thing, that's a fact. Look at every other out gay actor's article; they all state their sexuality. If it's information, it's out there, and is a reliably-sourced fact, it'll probably end up being on their Wikipedia article. You can start entries on noticeboard pages like this all you want, but singling out Luke Evans, whether his sexuality is in contention for the moment due to issues of clarity is only going to be temporary for the most part. You can't police a page forever, and information about relationships and sexuality, under "Personal life" sections, will continue to abound, and won't abate due to whatever issues you have with the facts being put there. 220.239.157.22 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that saying being gay is not "notable" is a blatant double standard given how most biographies of straight people mention things down to who was dating whom (e.g. Alanis Morisette). We don't mention they're straight because it's pretty damn obvious and it's the default, isn't it? By simply mentioning who they're dating, you are already actually divulging their sexuality. It's also their own private romantic lives and not actually "encyclopedically notable", so why can they be mentioned? Because it's actually an intrinsic part of a person's life, whether it actually has anything to do with their notability or not. Same thing with being gay. The incessant refrain of 'we don't say someone is heterosexual' is becoming ridiculous. It's not like we're accusing them of being axe-murderers. In cases where it's clearly noncontroversial and freely admitted (e.g. Neil Patrick Harris where being gay is also not central to his life), it can obviously be mentioned in the same way that we can mention where Actor X went to high school. But I digress...

In this case, I also think it should not be mentioned. AfterElton and The Advocate, etc. are not quite neutral sources. And given the actor's apparent reluctance to clarify things on why he's dating a woman these days, it's best to assume he doesn't want to talk about it. Bringing attention to it strikes me as forced outing and scandal-mongering, sorry. It's all speculation at this point, so unless he reaffirms his earlier statements in previous interviews, it is quite controversial and falls under WP:BLP.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   19:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC) :* Do you have some evidence that either AfterElton or The Advocate (which is a nationally-respected award-winning publication of some 40 years vintage) are pushing an agenda regarding Luke Evans? Is The New York Times guilty of bias when it covers heterosexuals? Or is it only gay publications that are to be held to this higher standard? Outing means reporting on someone's homosexuality when they don't want it to be public knowledge. Evans presumably gave the interviews of his own free will; he was not outed in any way. It is not speculation that Evans gave interviews in which he discussed being gay; it is verified fact. It is no more controversial to say that he said he was gay but now a woman is claiming to date him than it is for someone to say s/he's vegetarian only to have someone later claim s/he ate a steak. And even if he is dating a woman it doesn't mean he isn't gay. His current reluctance to discuss his personal life now does not mean that previous statements about it are off-limits. Ethel Merman famously "wrote" about her marriage to Ernest Borgnine by including a blank page in her memoir; were she alive no one would suggest deleting Borgnine from her article because she became reluctant to discuss him. This entire situation reeks of the same old double-standards. Sexuality is only "relevant" if it's mainstream. Variants are "irrelevant" and through censorship rendered invisible.
 * There is no valid reason why the article can't include something like "Evans gave interviews in 2002 in which he discussed being gay and how it affected his personal and professional lives. He has since declined to discuss his personal life." It's neutral, verifiable and factual. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

William Bradshaw (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC) ::* Above comment was removed for an unstated reason by Off2riorob. William Bradshaw (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Who are you to decide whether someone's sexuality is or isn't central to his life?" Precisely. And who are you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is or isn't is absolutely irrelevant because "central to his life" has no basis as an inclusion standard. No policy-based reason has been given and the cited policy, BLP, in no way restricts the addition of this information because it has multiple independent reliable sources. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Having gay publications commenting about his sexuality is not a gold star to include content, thats a simplified position. - clearly there are additional issues here - it seems that Gay blogs are attempting to publicize the subjects comments about his sexual preferences a decade ago - the subject is not apparently changing his mind and dating women and commenting he is a private person - the gay locations are screaming loudly he is gay and out - imo all of this sexuality dispute sourced to the locations provided it not presently notable. Or add it at People that have said they were attracted to men and a decade later dated women - Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please cite the policy which states that LGBT-related publications may not serve as reliable sources for LGBT-related content. Whether "gay blogs are attempting to publicize" his old comments doesn't change the fact that he made the comments to independent reliable sources. The only "additional issue" is whether we will follow the BLP policy and include this verified information in a neutral manner or whether we shall adhere to a non-existent standard of "I don't think it's important" as an excuse for censorship. You keep talking about how his being gay is supposedly not "notable" but notability is the standard for articles themselves, not the information contained within those articles. This person is notable and his statements of his homosexuality are verifiable. There is no valid reason for exclusion. I will not comment on the suggested article title other than to note that it demonstrates the thinking of someone who knows little or nothing about gay issues and the gay experience. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Weight and WP:Undue are two positions that come to mind - also = this is not a gay activist location - this is the en wikipedia - here - having a sexuality that is referred to as gay is not automatically notable. As a response to your comment - "it demonstrates the thinking of someone who knows little or nothing about gay issues and the gay experience." - I don't care about gay activism or gay issues - this is not the gay activist news.Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This actually argues in favor of including verifiable information about Evans' statement of his homosexuality, as long as it's done in a way that's in balance with the rest of his article. A sourced paragraph about them such as has been suggested here several times would satisfy policy. No one is trying to make this about gay activism but you. Reporting a simple statement about an individual's sexual orientation is not "activism". Repeatedly removing it could be interpreted as an act of anti-gay activism, however, especially when accompanied by statements like "this is Wikipedia not the gay activist news." And it's been explained that notability is not the standard for including information within an article; was that not clear? William Bradshaw (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:NPOV supported by the err on the side of caution aspect of WP:BLP - someones sexual preference is unrelated to - "significant viewpoints" - Claims of anti gay activism here in regard to me are laughable - I have thousands of edits here and can present many additions and supports of additions regarding someones gay sexuality - you on the other hand are a single focus new contributor, a single purpose account as regards gay labeling with forty discussion edits that only wants to focus on this persons disputed sexuality - yada yadas yada. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

* (outdent) Dude, you're the one who brought up WEIGHT and UNDUE; not my fault if it doesn't say what you claim it says. We err on the side of caution by citing information in BLPs to reliable sources, which the article did. Evans' sexuality is not "disputed". Evans gave multiple interviews in which he stated clearly that he is gay and neither he nor his publicist has ever made a public statement to the contrary. A sourced paragraph covering all of the available material is completely appropriate. However long I've been here and however many "additions and supports" you've made it doesn't change the simple fact that you're misinterpreting and misrepresenting policy here. And hey, if you're so supportive of adding material regarding individuals' sexuality (despite supposedly never thinking about gay issues) then that makes your failure to support this reliably sourced verifiable information all the more unfathomable. Strange how on all those other articles their sexuality was important enough to include but somehow it isn't here... William Bradshaw (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And out come the innuendoes again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

He makes a point of adding material to articles about peoples' homosxuality but he doesn't think about gay issues. He supports the inclusion of sexuality material except he doesn't think sexuality is relevant. And on top of that he won't explain what he thinks makes inclusion of sexuality "notable" (leaving aside that notability isn't the standard for inclduing information within articles). William Bradshaw (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone makes a decent case with decent independent reliable support for this persons sexuality being a notable thing I will add it myself - As for your claim that, "Evans' sexuality is not "disputed" - well - Evan's was last seen dating a woman. Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to enter this conversation again. I think it would help, Off2riorob, if you would explicitly state what your (or Wikipedia's) criteria for notability are. What WOULD make an actor's sexual orientation notable? If you would please list those criteria, then it would be easier to argue whether or not Evans meets those criteria. Also, it would help if you could explain why you believe Evans' sexual orientation is less notable than the sexual orientation of several other actors whose sexual orientation IS included in their Wiki entries. For example, actor Luke Macfarlane, who has a role in an ensemble TV show but is not a particularly well-known celebrity or household name, came out in a single newspaper article in Canada. That article has been referenced by other media, but it is the only article as far as I know in which Macfarlane has talked openly about coming out. Macfarlane's Wiki entry mentions that he is openly gay. Other examples would include Lance Bass, Reichen Lehumkuhl, and Neil Patrick Harris, whose Wiki pages mention their personal lives and sexuality, even though one could probably argue that their sexuality has no direct influence on their careers. It appears as if you believe an actor's sexuality is never notable. If that is not the case, please explain when it WOULD be notable. And please explain why other actors' pages, such as the ones I have mentioned, are allowed to include references to their sexuality.JoeBotX (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With regard to those particular articles, I've not looked, but see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If Wikipedia used precedent to determine content, we'd be in the gutter. Or perhaps we are, but at least we are trying to climb out... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that Wikipedia doesn't use precedent, but it's hard to overlook the glaring inconsistency, which reflects poorly on Wikipedia. It appears that if an actor comes out in a respected publication such as The Advocate, it is noted on their Wikipedia page. Unless that actor happens to be Luke Evans. You did not address my larger point, which is: What are the criteria for determining notability? What, specifically, makes sexuality notable? Because it seems completely arbitrary. In previous comments, you and Off2riorob have said that publicly coming out doesn't make it notable. Talking about it in a publication such as The Advocate doesn't make it notable. Talking about it in multiple publications over a period of years doesn't make it notable. Taking on gay roles doesn't make it notable. Talking about how you can help others come out and deal with discrimination doesn't make it notable. Talking about how it has (or hasn't) affected your acting and your career doesn't make it notable. So what DOES make it notable? If you would state those criteria, it would help this discussion greatly (and would also help determine whether references to sexuality should be removed from other celebrities' pages).JoeBotX (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are rather getting this backwards. Sadly, there is a great deal of trivial nonsense in Wikipedia articles. By and large, it either goes unnoticed, or gets fixed. Someone noticed the inconsistency between Wikipedia labelling Evans as unambiguously 'gay', and reports the he was dating a woman. So they did the obvious thing, which was to look into the matter - at which point it became obvious that Evans didn't consider his sexuality to be a public issue - as is his right. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, sections of the US gay media seem to think that this is a big issue, and kicked up a fuss. Suddenly new editors pile into the discussion, with no idea of what previous debates have been about, and no concept of just how much time is wasted on contributors trying to shove people into arbitrary boxes ('gay', 'Jew'...) regardless of whether it is actually relevant to the people themselves. So yes, We react, because we don't think that pressure groups of any kind, regardless of the justness of their cause have the right to use other people's sexuality (or faith, or ethnicity...) as ammunition in their political debate. Now, the question is, do you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect to state that Evans didn't consider his sexuality to be a public issue. He CHOSE to make it a public issue by sitting down on the record with several publications for in-depth interviews: London's Gay Times, The Advocate, QX Magazine and GaydarNation. Evans CHOSE to come out to the press, and not just once but on at least four separate occasions over a span of at least 2 years. He (or his handlers or someone else connected to him) chose to make it an issue again in 2010 by speaking with the British and Welsh press about the fact that he is now dating a woman. Once an actor chooses to make something public, it IS public and is fair game. I don't see how it is political to merely acknowledge the existence of articles that are part of the public record. And again, you have not addressed the issue of the criteria that are used to judge notability. Without some criteria, it is impossible to debate the notability of Evans' sexuality. And please do not assign motives to my comments. I am participating in this discussion because off2riorob encouraged me to. He said, "Please don't give up now, your contributions to this discussion are very beneficial."JoeBotX (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, no criteria by which to judge notability have been offered. AndyTheGrump and off2riorob have repeatedly asserted that Evans' sexuality is not notable, without ever explaining why. No standards or criteria by which to judge notability have been offered. No examples of what MIGHT make it notable have been offered. It appears that ultimately it is a purely arbitrary judgment, which explains why publicly "coming out" IS notable on some celebrities' Wiki pages but not on others'. Without any attempt to identify clear criteria, this ugly debate is likely to play out over and over again whenever a celebrity publicly comes out in an interview with a publication such as the Advocate.JoeBotX (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's my summary of the arguments so far, with a few additions of my own: --Merrywanderer (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A) Evans’s sexuality is not relevant
 * 1) Evans himself said he was gay and stated that it affected his career and notability
 * B) Evans seems to have changed his mind about sexuality (or at least publicity).
 * 1) A change in mind does not erase the period of his life.  He moved from Crumlin to Aberbargoed, but Crumlin still gets mentioned.  (Anne Heche’s same-sex relationship also gets mentioned.)
 * C) Being gay is not encyclopedic notable. “His sexuality has not notably affected him in any way.” We don’t say people are straight.
 * 1) Why is a few years in Crumlin encyclopedic notable?
 * 2) Evans himself chose to make it notable on several occasions.
 * 3) We mention paraplegic athletes because they are rare.  We should mention out gay movie stars because they are rare.  (The very fact that his handler is trying to cover it up reinforces this.)
 * 4) Do you think that growing up gay with Jehovah’s Witnesses does not have an impact on his life?
 * 5) Why are there countless examples for List of LGBT writers/films/Jews/etc?
 * 6) Countless examples of LGBT people (Anna Paquin and Anderson Cooper are pretty comparable) mention sexuality.  That's not OTHERCRAP; these are highly trafficked pages.
 * D) Off2riorob removed highly sourced material from direct interviews with Evans, replaced it with unsourced material, and froze the article for BLP
 * 1) It's not "notable."  [but no rebuttal to his adding unsourced material]
 * E) We shouldn’t force people out of the closet if he doesn’t want to talk about it
 * 1) He DID talk about it and came out.  That’s a verifiable fact.
 * F) He hasn’t said RECENTLY that he’s gay
 * 1) See B1

Abuse of process
has unofficially "locked" the page on his preferred version for the past 6 months and has made 4 reverts which have repeatedly removed NPOV/RS information and re-inserted BLP-violating unsourced information. My good faith is waning. I believe Off2riorob wants to stall the discussion indefinitely by repeatedly asserting that it's "irrelevant" (an irrelevant assertion itself, huzzah!) and ignoring all challenges to his idea. He is repeatedly warning of a need for a "consensus" which is not the process with regards to a clear application of policy. Where BLP is not being violated, it is not a BLP issue. In light of that, I see these nonconstructive edits as blatantly disruptive. I think the BLP noticeboard is itself being abused to actually lock the page to suit an editor's personal preferences (irrespective of policy) and in fact, ironically, for some reason to keep unsourced information frozen on the page. Because a BLP discussion is going on doesn't give Off2riorob the right to maintain a personal version of the right page under the mistaken opinion that this is a "consensus" issue when it is a policy one.Zythe (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Peoples sexuality is rarely notable at all. Even if you have a citation and you add it neutrally and without original research. Nothing apart from sexual labeling has been presented here to support this living persons sexuality is encyclopedic-ally notable. His sexuality has not notably affected him in any way. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we have this BLP under discussion at the external citation as presented above and now this post at LGBT studies discussion page, looks a bit like not neutral canvassing to me - there is an attempt to de gay someone - quick get your pitchforks - Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yes, it has. He says so himself! And again, there's also external notability (e.g., new article on the subject here http://www.queerty.com/action-star-luke-evans-doesnt-realize-his-gay-past-is-all-over-the-internets-20110808/comment-page-1/#comment-474152). You're trying to say we need to come to a consensus because you think as long as you're unwilling to change your mind, the page will have to stay the way it is.Zythe (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No - as long as you're unwilling to give a valid reason why an actors sexuality is anyone's business but his, the page will have to stay the way it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Say what you mean, Andy: you want a valid reason why an actor's homosexuality is anyone's business but his. Do you have the same standard of inclusion for heterosexual actors? Should they be stripped of all information that relates to their being heterosexual? And how exactly does an actor make his homosexuality anyone's business but his if discussing it directly and openly in multiple interviews doesn't do it? And what Wikipedia policy or guideline supports the "no one's business but his" as the standard for inclusion? The standard for inclusion under BLP is met by multiple independent reliable sources that attest to the information. The reasons given for excluding it are unsupported by any policy or guideline and amount to a variation of "I don't think it's important." The subject of the article has said on more than one occasion that it is important from both a personal and a professional standpoint and he is a far better judge of what's important in his life than you are. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you make a habit of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot? Frankly, I think this indicates how little thought you have put into this. And by the way, I too have been a long-term supporter of gay rights - I merely believe that one of these rights includes not being co-opted against your will into a political campaign. Still, this is a Wikipedia BLP, so the opinion of the person concerned doesn't matter a damn... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? Who exactly is co-opting anyone into anything against anyone's will? A real "long-term supporter of gay rights" couldn't rationally think that merely calling a gay person gay in a Wikipedia article is co-opting anyone or anything. Is listing off all of Britney Spears' marriages "co-opting" her for the straight agenda? Ridiculous. And unless you've personally spoken to Luke Evans, you can't possibly know whether he thinks his self-acknowledged homosexuality being mentioned in his Wikipedia article is good, bad or indifferent, much less whether he thinks he's been "co-opted" into something. I don't see a political or social campaign here on the part of the people wanting to include this verified, reliably sourced material to the article. What I do see is a campaign on the part of a handful of editors to suppress that information with no valid reason. "I don't like it" or "I don't think it's relevant" or "I don't think it's important" are not valid reasons for censorship.
 * I've been thinking about homosexuality since I figured out I was one almost 30 years ago, so I think I might possibly have a better understanding of what being gay means than someone who hasn't been.
 * Expecting the same standards to apply to both straight and gay biographies is not an accusation of bigotry.
 * Neither you nor anyone else here has offered a valid reason for censoring his homosexuality out of his article or for classifying his homosexuality as "controversial" when the same information about a heterosexual would not be. And even assuming for the sake of argument that a person's homosexuality is "controversial" BLP doesn't say that controversial information can't be included. BLP says that "contentious" information about living people must be removed if it is unsourced or poorly sourced. Luke Evans' homosexuality is not unsourced or poorly sourced. It is sourced to at least two reputable news outlets which offer direct, undisputed quotations from the subject himself stating that he is gay and why and how being open and honest about his homosexuality is important to him. Claiming that it violates BLP is intellectually dishonest. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you don't think that Evans' choice not to answer After Elton's questions about his sexuality is of any significance here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First, Evans did not choose not to respond to AfterElton. Evans' publicist refused to contact Evans regarding the inquiry. Second, I absolutely think that Evans' decision not to discuss his personal life and/or sexuality is relevant to the article and should be noted within it. That's why I suggested the proposed addition that I did. Put in a paragraph about his coming out and discussing the effect of his sexuality on his personal and professional lives, sourced to The Advocate and the other interviews, along with information about his no longer discussing his personal life including a quote from the publicist sourced to the AfterElton article. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see nothing in the AfterElton article to suggest that Evans' publicist refused to contact him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph from the bottom: "And his management would neither let me speak to Evans, nor provide a quote attributable to him." (emphasis added) I read that as a refusal to contact Evans but whether that's technically correct you still can't state as fact that Evans chose not to respond to AfterElton. That really makes little difference to the overall point, which you seem to have avoided yet again. The overall point is that this is verifiable information and no policy has been properly cited to prevent its addition. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Living subjects sexuality is not usually notable - Gay is normal and unworthy of inclusion unless additionally noteworthy - that has not been shown in this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, you are unable to cite policy which supports the exclusion of this information and so are once again falling back on the "noteworthy" thing. There is no policy issue. In your opinion the information shouldn't be included and in the opinion of other editors it should be. Since we are an encyclopedia dedicated to dispensing information and since there is no valid reason to exclude this information it should be included. William Bradshaw (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you have no evidence at all to suggest that the choice not to talk to AfterElton wasn't Evans'? And regarding policy, you seem to be under the misapprehension that 'inclusion' of verifiable information is the default. It isn't. It never has been. If you think there is a valid case for adding this material to the article, then make it - but don't paint everyone who sees things differently as a homophobic bigot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw this comment higher up: "Peoples sexuality is rarely notable at all." That seems extraordinarily incorrect. The people whom biography subjects marry, an expression of their sexuality, is almost always included in an article if known. Likewise, when those who have sexual orientations different from the standard it is routinely a significant part of the coverage of them. While I don't think that every gay person who sings should be categorized as an "LGBT singer", neither should we go out of our way to exclude that information from the article text simply because it isn't the thing they are best known for. Otherwise, leading to the logical conclusion, we'd have to begin deleting from articles those spouses who are not "central" to the subjects' notability.  Will Beback   talk    23:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Oh for god's sake, it makes no difference to this discussion whether Evans personally instructed his representative about talking to AfterElton or not. This is a meaningless canard that has no bearing on the main question. As for policy, show me one that precludes the inclusion of this material. BLP doesn't. I've made the case time and again. The information is verifiable in reliable sources and can be presented neutrally as required by policy. William Bradshaw (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, marriage is notable and will be reported without question - whether they marry a man or a woman or Jesus. Your other position is a focus on a minority as notable - your assertion is that its usual to have a man with a woman and so we should report men that go with men - my position is diametrically opposed to you - imo its normal to be gay and unworthy of special reporting standards. - as I have seen its usual for activists and activist sites to focus on such but quality independent reports (such as wikipedia policy strives to be)don't even comment about it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's normal and unworthy of comment then why do people make a point of commenting on it? If I understand this case, the subject went out of his way to talk about it.   Will Beback    talk    00:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Its normal to be gay, do you dispute that? Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If by "normal" you mean "in conformance to an average", then no, it's no more normal than left-handedness, red hair, or any one of a number of other traits that define a person. It's not normal to be born in Spain either, but we routinely report the country of birth for subjects. Sexual orientation is a major factor in the nature of a person, and it inherently biographical information which should be included when known from reliable sources.    Will Beback    talk    01:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's completely bogus. "Quality independent reports" routinely mention the sexuality of their subjects and this pretense that it's the purview of "gay activist sites" is nonsensical. And you say above that you don't think or care about gay issues. But you're supposedly familiar enough with the practices of gay media outlets to declare that they're infested with activists with agendas? William Bradshaw (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not bogus - I have experience of thousands of neutral editing here for over two years - you are a single purpose account with forty edits only focused on gay labeling. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And you think the number of edits you've made is relevant to my points about your arguments...how exactly? William Bradshaw (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * you are a single purpose account with forty edits only focused on gay labeling - what part of that don't you understand? Policy and guidelines have been repeatedly pointed out to you . Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop getting away from the point. It's not relevant what edits William's made. It doesn't make him any less of a contributor. I don't think anyone's disputing that being gay is normal. Can we just settle this already? This is the longest post on this page now, all over a pretty simple issue. He commented on being gay in reputable news sources, it's his personal life and should be under the appropriate section on the article, just as it is with every other out gay person's article. It's relevant, and like it was said above, it should only be challenged if it's unsourced, which it's most definitely not. Unless you are Evans' publicist who clearly doesn't want his sexuality to get out, you have no valid hitherto-undisproved reason for objecting. 130.130.37.13 (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If being gay is normal (which it clearly is, by any reasonable definition of 'normal' other than that of Conservapedia) can't we just say that Evans is normal, and leave it at that? Or even better, since being normal isn't worth mentioning, not mention it: "it's his personal life" - not anyone else's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's his personal life which he chose to make public by granting at least three interviews in which he discussed his decision to be openly gay and the effects that being openly gay had on his life and career to that point. Whether or not gay is "normal" (of course it is) is irrelevant to the question of whether there is a BLP violation. There is clearly no BLP violation because the material in question is impeccably sourced to words spoken by the subject himself and to later news reports of his supposedly dating a woman. This was never a BLP violation. This was always a content dispute and should have been handled on the article's talk page. This should be marked as resolved with instruction to take the content discussion where it belongs. William Bradshaw (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Luke Evans dispute
Comments posted at the LGBT studies talkpage by User:Zythe - Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

An attempt to de-gay openly gay Luke Evans (actor) and freeze the page that way is under way at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Please comment.
 * - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies
 * Further context, http://www.afterelton.com/people/2011/08/luke-evans-in-or-out-gay-man and http://www.queerty.com/action-star-luke-evans-doesnt-realize-his-gay-past-is-all-over-the-internets-20110808/.

Use of "Notability" Violates Wikipedia's Own Policy - Not That It Matters to This Phony "Encyclopedia"
Once more, Wikipedia shows itself to be a pack of fools for whom facts mean nothing and Wikipedia's own policies can be blithely ignored by any ad hoc flashmob that comes along. Is it any wonder that serious authorities on a wide variety of subjects routinely ignore Wikipedia, and no respectable academic institution anywhere in the world will permit a student to use Wikipedia as a source?

Notability does not apply to material in an article. It applies only to whether the subject is notable. Therefore, to censor information in an article on grounds that it's not "notable" violates Wikipedia's policy. Here is Wikipedia's policy on notability: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."

I don't expect this fact to carry any weight whatsoever here. You see, Wikipedia doesn't care about facts. Its rules are a joke. All that has ever mattered at Wikipedia is the whim of whatever flashmob will enforce whatever version it can agree on, without regard to what's true, or what conforms to Wikipedia's rules. People, you're a joke. You write, and edit, a children's book that no one in his or her right mind should, or will, ever take seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't think anyone takes Wikipedia seriously, why bother to comment here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Since Wikipedia is a children's publication read and edited by children, there's no need to ever care about anything written here, because there are no standards whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Job
It's always nice to see Wikipedia in the news for doing something like this. Having more people laugh at how idiotically bureaucratic our policies are. See Gawker for details on that. I know that people might want to be participating in bisexual erasure or something to that effect, but if Evans is truly dating Holly Goodchild, then he's bisexual. We're not going to call him that, of course, but it's annoying to see all of the arguing above being about how he's gay or straight and that there's no middle option.

Now, about the actual subject at hand. The information that was included in the article before was fine. Citing a statement from a BLP subject cannot violate BLP. Because the information is coming directly from the subject. Thus, if he directly stated that he was gay in the past in a reliable source, then we should include that statement. We should also include the well-referenced fact that he is dating Holly. Maybe even include a bit of Holly's quote from that source as well. But we shouldn't be whitewashing his BLP because he is dating a girl now. Without a direct statement from him one way or the other, we should be including both sides of the issue.

As for those talking about notability in terms of the gay information, the fact that in the past, him being gay played a large part in his acting career, as explained in references given above, shows that it is important to include his statement in his article. Silver seren C 06:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. Can't we just go with this and get over this whole pointless, tiringly long argument already? It's information, it's there, it's cited, move on. 220.239.143.238 (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here here. There isn't a policy blocking this, just a couple of people who don't think sexuality "is noteworthy" (but who seemingly think where Evans went to sixth form is).Zythe (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Absent a statement from Evans that he's bisexual, his bisexuality can't be assumed. But you are otherwise absolutely correct as to how this issue should be handled. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just expressing my annoyance at the above arguments of "he's gay" and "he's straight", since those aren't the only options. Maybe he's pansexual with a proclivity for gay porn? That would also make sense. Silver  seren C 21:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that people view sexuality with far too much polarity. I just mean that we can't say he's bisexual unless he does. We can say he's come out as gay and we can say that he's reportedly dating a woman. William Bradshaw (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is yet one more case in which Wikipedia is run by an ad hoc flashmob that is free to ignore Wikipedia's own policies, and the facts. In this case, the fact is that the actor gave an interview to the Advocate, a leading magazine, in which he discussed his homosexuality. That information has been censored here, in violation of Wikipedia's own rules. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia has become a worldwide joke. Leading authorities on a wide variety of subjects have given up on Wikipedia, and there isn't a single respectable academic institution anywhere in the world that permits its students to source from Wikipedia. At Wikipedia, facts are determined by politics, and a "Lord of the Flies" mentality supercedes any and all policies or rules here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that only gay publications ever posted articles on his sexuality - the interview was some time ago (even if current articles relying on the one interview are found in a number of current gay publications) and the issue of WEIGHT is always present when categorizing people as to sexual orientation. Current feelings on BLP/N appear to indicate that categorizing people where the issue is not part of their notability in any way may well violate WP:BLP. If his notability is dependent on his sexual orientation, then a good cite would be from a mainstream reliable source, which hasnot been given thus far. This same discussion has been made anout nationality and religions of people, with the same position being taken that unless the matter is of some substantial improtance that such matters should (must) have strong mainstream reliable sourcing. Thus a magazine aimes at Gnarphians is a poor source for asserting that John Doe is one of that group, sect or nationality, even if it publishes an interview apparently saying John Doe is a Gnarphian. If a mainstream reliable source publishes it as a fact, then that would far better meet the strictures of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have the slightest shred of evidence that any of the sources which published interviews with Evans about being gay fabricated them, misquoted him, misrepresented him in any way or are in any way unreliable as sources, please present it now. The idea that a gay-interest publication must be held to higher standards when reporting on a gay-interest story is not only flat-out wrong, it is a gross insult to the hundreds of journalists who have worked diligently to secure their reputations for journalistic integrity. Sports Illustrated is not considered suspect as a source for sports-related articles. The Wall Street Journal is not a suspect source for economics articles. The New York Times is not a suspect source for articles about New York politics. In the absence of evidence that The Advocate or any other source is biased, the assumption of bias is itself a biased accusation of groupthink and agenda-pushing. It is sheer ignorance. It is unacceptable. William Bradshaw (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to declare him "gay." His interviews with the Advocate and other magazines should be quoted and linked. But that won't happen at Wikipedia, because Wikipedia isn't a reliable, ethical, or factual publication. Never has been, never will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with SS's proposal above. It's all notable and sourced, so include it all. Dayewalker (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2011
 * "Notability" is irrelevant here. Wikipedia's own policy on "notability" says so. "Notability" applies to whether or not a subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, NOT to the contents of the article. But the children who have censored the article haven't even bothered to read, much less comply with, Wikipedia's own rules. Is it any wonder that serious people and academic institutions throughout the world laugh at this phony "encyclopedia" that has no regard for fact or even its own policies?

WP:CANVASS violations
Have occurred with non-neutral canvassing being done on a LGBT project page etc. All those who come here as a result may well be disregarded as solicited !votes (sigh). BTW, the fact that a young person said he was gay, and later in life shows up with a girlfriend and with a publicist saying he will not comment on his sexuality now seems to me to indicate that the "gay" adjective may well be misplaced at this point in time. , ,  , seem to belie "gay" as a utile term for the person. Frankly if a person appears to change orientation, it is not WP job to freeze them into a category of sexuality. Anne Heche is a great example. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't watch the LGBT project page, so that has nothing to do with me (thus, i'm not solicited). Secondly, I agree that the original wording should be changed, it was stating it as a fact, when it should just be quoting what he said. But it should still be covering both sides of it and not ignoring the extensive amount of statements and things he was involved with in the past that were based on his original reported homosexuality. We shouldn't be stating anything as fact in terms of it, correct, but we also shouldn't be omitting information about it. Silver  seren C 20:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Accusations of canvassing are completely false. WP:CANVASS says, in a nutshell, "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." While the word "de-gay" may not be the most neutral word choice possible, the notification was a request to comment, not a request to weigh in against the deletion. It should not be assumed that all gay people share the same opinion on this issue. The very first example of appropriate notification is "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion." The LGBT Wikiproject is directly related to the subject under discussion so notification is entirely appropriate.
 * Key in your opinion is the phrase "if a person appears to change orientation". That is not what has happened here. Evans has stated publicly on several occasions that he is gay. The act of dating a woman, if he is indeed dating her, does not prove anything about his self-identification. Categorizing him as gay based on his own statements is acceptable. Categorizing him as bisexual based on the act of dating a woman is original research. If categorizing him as "gay" is considered too appallingly inappropriate then he can go into the "LGBT" categories. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazingly enough - I find absolutely zero recent statements from him that he is gay.  And the CANVASSing was absolutely not neutral, and might lead to a WP:False consensus if you read the Arbcom principles and findings in the past.  Lastly, WP:BLP states that contentious claims requires extremely strong sourcing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that someone has to continually reassert that they are gay in front of the media every few years in order for it to stick? We would be referencing the fact that he stated he was gay in the past. If he makes a statement in the future that changes that, then we add in that changed information. But, in the past, his homosexuality was a fairly large part of his theatre and film career, as stated in his interviews. Silver  seren C 21:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The canvassing accusations are absolute nonsense. The most directly involved Wikiproject was notified of a discussion relevant to it and invited to participate. That's all. And there's no evidence anyway that anyone from the project even read the notice, much less have come here to participate. Continually saying that the canvassing guideline was violated is in my opinion beginning to border on a bad-faith attempt to influence the discussion by casting aspersions on one of its leading participants. And seriously, even if saying that a gay man is gay is "contentious", exactly how much stronger does the sourcing have to be for us to say that he has identified himself as gay than multiple quotes directly from the man himself? Whether he said it last week, last year or last decade, he still said it. Quotes don't have expiration dates. William Bradshaw (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A simple question. Do you believe that it is possible for people to change their sexual orientation over time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the way you phrased it, no. I believe in Kinsey's sliding scale of sexuality, that almost everyone is bisexual to one degree or another, even if they heavily favor one specific gender. So, in terms of what you're specifically asking, my answer is yes. And in terms of what you're asking about Luke Evans, I think that we should reflect what he has stated in the past, as we have no current statement on what his sexuality is. Therefore, we have no reason to believe otherwise than what he has stated, even if he has a girlfriend. For us to assume straightness or otherwise because of this girlfriend would be original research, as we are only meant to reflect the reliable sources as they are. Silver  seren C 03:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether they can or they can't is not relevant to the discussion. The proposed addition is to include what Evans himself has said in interviews and actions that Evans has been reported to have done. It is indisputable that Evans has identified himself as gay through several news outlets. It is indisputable that reliable sources have reported that he is currently dating a woman. We are not suggesting returning to the "Evans is openly gay" version of the article. We are suggesting a version in which Evans' statements about his sexuality are included in a neutral fashion. William Bradshaw (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And in addition to that, the page should not be categorised under any category due to the discrepancy. We're not accusing him of being anything now. Everything is cited, true, and attached to a date. Wikipedia makes no BLP-violating pronouncements about the man. Only citing his own words back to him. However, refusing to include that the actor identified as gay because you personally find that incompatible with recent events is editorialising. It doesn't violate BLP, so why should Wikipedia care? It's not even a matter of privacy; these matters are not private, they are in the reputable press, and self-disclosed at that.Zythe (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is It Notable Enough Yet?
This whole debacle showed up on a national cable television show (Chelsea Lately) earlier this evening. They mentioned The Advocate interview and how bad Wikipedia is coming off over this. I expect there will only be more coverage from here. So is it notable enough yet? Or are we going to continue to ignore Wikipedia guidelines in order to perpetuate homophobia? 184.9.212.12 (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — 184.9.212.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * "Chelsea lately" is part of a tabloid television cable network which is not RS either AFAICT. Meanwhile, accusing all the large number of editors who oppose sexual categorization as homophobic does your case here no favours whatsoever. A mere mention about Evans is not a reliable factual source as to his sexuality.   What you might be able to use it in is an article about how seriously Wikipedia edotors take the WP:BLP policy.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You say you take WP:BLP seriously and yet I've just reread the page and I see nothing to suggest that including information from multiple sources that quote the actor's own words violates BLP policy. Can you please explain to me exactly what criteria you're using justify its exclusion. The BLP policy says that information must be from strong reliable sources and that is exactly what was done. The only mention of sexual orientation and its need for notability on that page is in regards to Categories which is another matter and not one that is currently being discussed. --AlbionBT (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — AlbionBT (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Can you please respond to the argument that it's 1) Evans's own words 2) in multiple non-tabloid sources 3) which have not been disputed (dating a woman is not disputing that he said he was gay) 4) and actually have been tacitly affirmed (Publicist: "As for Luke, he [commented on his private life] once, a long time ago"). How can this possibly violate BLP?  --Merrywanderer (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — Merrywanderer (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia can't even follow its own rules. "NOTABILITY" is not something to be applied within an article, as per the Wikipedia guideline on the subject: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Yet this is why the article has been censored. No wonder Wikipedia is so widely scorned. Not only do facts not matter here, but this place can't even follow its own rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Policy versus editorial judgment
I haven't participated in this discussion, nor even read all of the back-and-forth here, but can we at least agree that there is no violation of WP:BLP involved here and that the argument is about exorcising editorial judgment? If there is a violation, can someone please explain in short sentences with direct reference to policy? This isn't going to end well. It is probably in Wikipedia's best interests to reduce the protection level on the article and work this out on the talk page with less polarized editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk)


 * That will not happen. Wikipedia has censored the article in violation of its own rules. This is far from the first time such a thing has happened at this phony children's encyclopedia, and it's far from the last time it'll happen. This is merely one more instance of the sort of disregard for fact and internal policy that has made Wikipedia a standing joke among serious people, and academics, throughout the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — 71.227.188.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Your arguments would carry a lot more weight if you stopped insulting everyone. AlbionBT (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not insulting any people. I am insulting Wikipedia. It is a joke. Remember: Not a single responsible academic institution anywhere on earth permits either students or faculty to cite Wikipedia as a source. In popular culture, Wikipedia is typically the punchline to a joke. This isn't an "encyclopedia," it's a bunch of words thrown together by flash mobs of children with no respect for facts or for Wikipedia's own stated policies. Whether or not I am polite has nothing to do with the corruption right at the center of everything Wikipedia does. Oh, and even if the actor's homosexuality is restored to this article, it won't "fix" anything. The fact that there was ever an argument about this here shows that Wikipedia merely postures as an information resource. It can never be trusted by any responsible adult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense - Experienced editors should be aware this thread and the article are mentioned off wiki on a gay chat thread and new users are showing up from there. Someone sexual preferences are not notable - unless they are massive, this subjects sexual preference is not notable - and jonny said he was a homosexual and then he dated a woman, really how encyclopedic-ally interesting - this is simply a matter of editorial control and respectable reporting about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? This issue has been reported in a large number of places and has generated a large number of tweets, more than just a 'gay chat thread'. AlbionBT (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia's own "NOTABILITY" rule: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." But, you see, on this laughingstock of an "encyclopedia," the children who write and edit it can't even follow their own rules. Sad, irritating, and laughable, all in one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That guideline appears irrelevant here as for the sad laughable children - don't get me started, please stop it with your attacking opinions, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why of course that guideline is irrelevant. Facts are irrelevant too. After all, this is Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This section starts with a false premise: All policies require editorial judgement. BLP requires more editorial thought, not less. I'm also not seeing any compelling evidence that the material in the "personal life" section is anything other than trivia. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything is trivia when it comes to celebrities. I never read any of that. Therefore Paris Hilton should be speedily deleted per BLP. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI: topic ban proposal
I have requested that Off2riorob be topic banned from articles like this at WP:AN. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw the request there and I have to say it was extremely poor judgement on your part. You don't jump to a topic ban because you don't like how your discussions with someone are going in one instance. Next time please explore more productive ways to work your problems out.Griswaldo (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Lendvai
Very biased 'biography' and potentially libellous.

It reads as if it has been created entirely to serve the poltical views of the Hungarian right (who are doing their best to publically discredit PL at the moment).

It should be removed asap, if it cannot be rewritten from a more neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.12.90 (talk • contribs)
 * agreed. As he is clearly notable it should be rewritten. Anyone is free to rewrite it, making clear from the beginning that there are two positions about the nature of his journalist activities, rather than doing as the article does, judging which one is correct.    DGG ( talk ) 15:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted what I saw as BLP violations and semi-protected it. The edits were basically restored so I reverted and fully protected, but this was removed (see my talk page). I've made some comments on the article talk page about sources, etc and found what looks like an impartial source. It definitely needs attention but one of the reasons I protected after removing material was to hand over to others to decide what should be in the article, as I don't want to edit it myself, having many other things to do (selfish me). Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be best to notify WP:HUNGARY because there's not much that editors not knowing that language can do here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As a general note: the further you move to the East in Europe, the more biased the press tends to be. (ref for Hungary ) So even if stuff is cited from mainstream newspapers, there's a good chance it is biased, and newspapers from the other end of the political spectrum may not agree even on basic facts. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Amy Goodman
User:Mathsci has removed some sourced criticisms form the Amy Goodman article claiming BLP violation: Original source: http://www.jewishpress.com/printArticle.cfm?contentid=17410 The Jewish Press is a reliable source. Feedback if this is a BLP violation would be appreciated. Miradre (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." The piece is a sharply-worded one-sided attack by the senior editor of a self-described "politically incorrect" publication that "has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the State of Israel" "[k]nown for its editorial feistiness" . The source is neither WP:RS nor presented conservatively or in a disinterested tone.  Rostz (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Sourced criticisms"? Really? What else do we find in the article cited: "Professor Noam Chomsky, one of the most virulent Israel-bashers in America and a friend of Holocaust deniers everywhere, is a close friend of Amy's". Guilt by association of the worst kind. Garbage like that doesn't belong in any encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:NEWSORG which would seem to apply here. Newspapers usually have a political stance. That does not make them unreliable. See also what WP:NEWSORG says regarding opinion material. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Miradre (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any further BLP violations of this type, added after being warned explicitly, will be removed on sight and if repeated could result in a block. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked for outside opinions. I know yours already. AndyTheGrump as well as Rostz are involved in disputes with me so I would appreciate opinions by uninvolved editors.Miradre (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am just interpreting wikipedia editing policy accurately. Having been given prior warnings, you are currently disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Mathsci (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How is asking for uninvolved views on this noticeboard disrupting Wikipedia? Miradre (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You were explicitly warned about this material in relation to Amy Goodman; and while this very issue has been raised at an arbitration noticeboard, you chose nevertheless to make a disruptive WP:POINT, blatantly violating WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Mathsci, would you be so kind as to link to the difs of the warning, and of the Arbitration noticeboard comment(s)? thanks much. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The specific article was discussed in relation to Amy Goodman here. The attempts to add negative or improperly sourced content about Amy Goodman were mentioned on WP:AE here. Mathsci (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You cite yourself. Still unclear how asking for an uninvolved opinion disrupts Wikipedia.Miradre (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that Miradre chooses not to respond to my point about the source, can I ask 'uninvolved editors' to comment on whether they think the Jewish Press article is suitable for use in a BLP? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur that you citing yourself is somewhat different than other non-involved editors making these same points; I would have appreciated it had you made that more clear in your original post, Mathsci ("I have previously informed Miradre [here] and [here] ", for example). That said, I will address the question of disruption. the edits violate BLP and if you continue adding such content, you risk sanctions. While raising the question here was the correct procedure, continuing to argue the point or re-adding the content, or similar content, or raising the issue in other venues, may be construed as disruptive, which also may carry sanctions. In the future, please be much more careful about the sourcing for any negative content on a BLP. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Miradre proposed edits of that kind and was warned by me, before adding such content, to ask for advice here. In the talk page discussion linked above other editors concurred with that view and the interpretation of BLP. A previous edit of a similar kind was made here. There was a discussion following that edit which resulted in Miradre adding an NPOV tag to the article Democracy Now!. Previously Miradre had blantantly violated WP:BLPPRIMARY by adding content to Democracy Now! about Amy Goodman drawn from a public tax declaration. Mathsci (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing defamatory or critical of Goodman was added. But I do not dispute that tax returns are a primary source so I did not object to the removal after this was pointed out. As noted there is a dispute here by the uninvolved editors regarding whether the Jewish Press article is OK or not. I think we should wait for more outside opinions.Miradre (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The puppy has spoken. The puppy said that the source is unacceptable per WP:BLP. The puppy is uninvolved. Please listen to the puppy. Mathsci (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another uninvolved editors disagrees. See below.Miradre (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Killerchihuahua is an administrator and has given a warning about santions. WP:BLP is very strict. Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Goodman is a broadcast journalist. The fact that she has been accused of bias by a notable publication seems relevant. Even if they chose to do it in a way we don't like. --GRuban (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Criticism is required by WP:BLP to be presented "conservatively, and in a disinterested tone"; the policy also states "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association". The editorial meets none of these requirements. Rostz (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rostz is correct; the contested content is unacceptable per BLP. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a requirement on how we should present criticism. That's not a requirement on what sources we should take note of. --GRuban (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Without questioning whether you have seen, below, that the source itself is questionable, I find this kind of hair splitting to fly in the face of common sense, and border on tendentiousness. Are you saying that we must take care in not being biased and hyperbolic, but oh, its ok if we use sources which are biased and hyperbolic? That seems overly argumentative. I'm sure there is a better word for what I'm thinking this is; I hope I've managed to be clear nonetheless. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference is that we write about the world, which is often biased and hyperbolic. We can do our best not to be that way ourselves, but that doesn't mean we need to pretend the world isn't. We have entire articles, much less sentences, about far worse, more biased, and hyperbolic, personal attacks on living people, for example Macaca (term). For that matter, most of Category:Ethnic and religious slurs. We can't endorse what that editorial says without better sources, correct. But we should note that an important conservative Jewish newspaper has accused her of bias. --GRuban (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, "we" really, really shouldn't, not without some strong sourcing from elsewhere. I don't know how to be any clearer about this. Do not re-add this information. If anyone does re-add this information, without extremely good secondary sourcing and an in-depth discussion on the article talk page, revert, inform them they are violating BLP, and inform me AND post on this page. Thank you. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The source is questionable; unless supporting sources of more stature can be found, the content should remain out of the BLP. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The only secondary source I have found is a peer-reviewed article which states that the current affairs reporting on Democracy Now! is as unbiased as comparable programmes on National Public Radio. (see also ). I have previously explained that, with a little more detail, on Talk:Democracy Now!. Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but you'll find plenty of accusations that NPR also has an anti-Israel bias. NPR, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. Accusations of political bias are generally going to be opinions, rather than peer reviewed studies. This is the first I've heard of Amy Goodman, so I had to look around. I find there are plenty of accusations of anti-Israel in the blogosphere, but they're not of the stature of the Jewish Press. Here's one that is published on the official US blog of Meretz, the Israeli political party, but since that blog clearly disavows its statements as being the official statements of Meretz, I don't think it meets our standards in itself, though it does show the trend. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing NPR, or the validity or lack thereof of various complaints about NPR. Please do not cofuse the issue by dragging in other sources. The question about whether this content, sourced to one editorial on The Jewish Press, is acceptable, has been asked and answered. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NEWSORG, editorial commentary is reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. The source in question is not appropriate for a WP:BLP. aprock (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Aprock. Leave the statement and the source out of the BLP. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe
I believe that the lead sentence of James O'Keefe is a violation of BLP as stated here.

James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is a conservative American activist who has produced videos, which were recorded secretly and heavily edited before release, of public figures and workers in a variety of organizations. He came to national attention after publishing video and audios of workers at Planned Parenthood in 2008 and at ACORN in 2009. O'Keefe has altered recordings to portray his subjects as unethical, criminal, irresponsible and/or racially biased. Such secret recordings are illegal in California and Maryland, which are among the states where he staged encounters.

There seems to be a desire to drive home the fact that he edited videos and recorded them secretly by basically stating the same information twice in the lead paragraph. I have tried to present a more neutral presentation without any success. My current attempt at compromise here

"James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is a conservative American activist. He came to national attention after secretly recording and then releasing edited video and audio of workers at Planned Parenthood in 2008 and at ACORN in 2009. O'Keefe edited the recordings to portray his subjects as unethical, criminal, irresponsible and/or racially biased. Such secret recordings are illegal in California and Maryland, which are among the states where he staged encounters."

One of my main contentions is the use of the weasel word "heavily" in the lead sentence. This comes from the point of view of the DA assigned to look at the videos relating to ACORN in CA. However, it is applied as a blanket statement of fact, which I believe to be a violation of BLP. My version clearly states that the video was edited, the degree of editing is arbitrary and meaningless other than to push the case. My other main contention is the insistance to include the statement in the first sentence. While he is known for the second part of the sentence, it is not the way you define a person. For the record I don't approve of his actions in the least, but he is a living person and BLP must be applied equally to all. Additionally, I am not sure the last sentence should stay either since it is accusatory that he has committed a crime, which to my knowledge he has not nor has he been convicted of one relating to the videos. Arzel (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The above grossly misstates reality: ...the word "heavily" ... comes from the point of view of the DA assigned to look at the videos relating to ACORN in CA. That is simply not true.
 * I made an uninvolved - Neutral edit diff to remove the unduly attacking portrayal in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "unduly attacking portrayal" is anything but neutral, as is the edit made with that mindset. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Off2riorob's edit is actually a much stronger statement even without the use of the word "Heavily". It doesn't apply a WP first person approach, and is also better grammatically.  Arzel (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Heavily edited videos" is the conclusion of a 5-month investigation by the Brooklyn (not 'CA') District Attorney's Office — not the "point of view" of an individual. Heavily edited. The California Attorney General's Office further investigated more videos, and found those, also, to be "severely edited". Later, even more videos were examined and found to be heavily edited, and described as editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented.

There is nothing "weasely" nor "unduly attacking" about the reliably sourced descriptions of O'Keefe's editing jobs from literally dozens of high-quality reliable sources. The extent to which he has edited his videos (heavily, severely, and selectively to deceive) is not "arbitrary and meaningless" as Arzel asserts; they are his hallmark. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is still in reference to the ACORN videos. The Raw Story story is also an opinion.  Everything else is still included, I don't know why you seem the need to make the blanket statement when there is no RS that applies it to him generally speaking.  Arzel (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I haven't cited any opinion pieces. The criticism of O'Keefe's deceptive editing applies to the NPR videos as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no BLP violation here. While we must remain neutral, that also means we do not whitewash - negative facts are not in themselves BLP violations. The statements are well sourced, the lead is a summary of the content of the article. While you may feel that other phrasing is preferable, that is a content dispute which needs to be resolved via normal channels (discussion, consensus.) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What "Whitewash"? No information was removed.  I don't see how applying a blanket statement unsported by RS's to not be a BLP.  Arzel (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he was speaking about your attempt to prevent the article lead from conveying the kind of editing O'Keefe does to his videos, and instead having it innocuously say that they are merely 'edited'. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources appear to mostly refer to videos regarding ACORN with one reference to heavily edited videos of NPR (but apparently a conclusion from the source rather then a lengthy investigation, the Glenn Beck site doesn't really say heavily edited to me since depending on the content it's arguably possible to edit a video to make it very misleading without heavy editing). In other words, the sources as provided don't really support the claim of 'heavily edited before release' .... 'in a variety of organizations' since they only source the claim of heavy editing for one or at most 2 organisations. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. An example of highly misleading but not heavy editing is perhaps easier with text then with video/audio. One of those 'importance of punctuation' text examples shows a case when what many people would call limited editing still produces a highly misleading result. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, O'Keefe is in the news again for applying for Medicaid in Maine while claiming to be a drug smuggler. http://bangordailynews.com/2011/08/11/politics/secret-video-alleges-possible-medicaid-fraud/?ref=mostReadBox -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Aris Poulianos
Dear Mms./Sirs:

Bellow you shall find my completed report to Ting Chen and Jimmy Wales about articles on pseudo-scientist Aris Poulianos, a LIVING known Greek Supremacy advocate who appears to have written, or contributed to the Greek article on your Greek Version himself.

However, I am asking you, in good faith to mediate with admin "Future Perfect at Sunrise" (FPS). FPS decided to remove an edit I did pointing to dubious education information about Poulianos on the English Poulianos article. Being that I was given the boot by the Greek admins on your Greek version for fowl language, which they started first with racist remarks, I am asking you to mediate.

My allegation against FPS in specific is, while she removed my edit, she also vandalized the article by removing the year when Poulianos had "supposedly" graduated, which was contributed, I presume, by another reader who contributed part about his education. Instead, she replaced it with an error, which again points to Poulianos and his family making the revision. In her comments about the deletion of my contribution she made the same "Queen's" College mistake Poulianos seems to make on his biography, on his own association's webpage, which should not be used for verification of Wikipedia articles on Poulianos.

FPS wrote "Cited source says it was Queen's College, New York (which became part of City University when that was established later)

explaining the deletion. But by deleting the date of 1948-1962, she VANDALIZED the article raising further suspicion she is an alias or an agent for Poulianos and his accomplishes.

Kindly advice and pursuant to regulation I want to discuss this with FPS, if you deem it appropriate, via emails because I have heard enough accusations from the Greek admins thus far. In the alternative, I ask you deleted all Poulianos's articles, pursuant to your rules because Poulianos is a living person embroiled in controversy and nonsense theories of Greeks being 700,000 years old!

Thank you in advance for your timely attention and response.

August 11, 2001

Ting Chen, Chair Jimmy Wales, Founder Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94105 via: Facsimile and Email

Re: Urgent - Wikipedia's Greek Edition Is Controled by Greek Supremacists

Dear Sirs:

I am alerting you to investigate "Βικιπαίδεια," the Greek Edition of Wikipedia for conspiracy perpetuated by its 20 administrators. Collectively, they promote racist Greek supremacy views of pseudo-scientist Aris Poulianos, a living person with dubious credentials. According to the Greek Poulianos article ("Άρης Πουλιανός"), Poulianos believes Greeks preceded modern humans by 700,000 years unopposed. Admins Markellos and Ttzavaras repeatedly deleted my edits and threatened me. Eventually, I was suspended permanently by tony esopi for fowl language, which admittedly I used while enraged. However, Ttzavaras began the fight with "is this how you behave in the country where you are?"[1] at 21:47, August 10, 2011. The comment was directed at a user who defended me. Ttzavaras accused the user that "this is not the first time you are hiding behind an anonymous IP."[2]  As a Greek living in America, I am sensitive about comments pertaining to ethnic origin and the Greek Diaspora. Ttzavaras's despotic behavior in egregious for an admin empowered by Wikipedia. I understand Βικιπαίδεια is independent but still, they use your trademark. Thus, they must follow high standards.

As for my edits on Βικιπαίδεια, Ttzavaras alleged when I wrote Poulianos's career was filed with "contradictions, inaccuracies, misinformation and political intrigue" I was expressing a personal view. However, I had supported it, inter alia, with a link to the English Wikipedia article which conflictingly claimed Poulianos was studying biology in Queens College in New York earning a degree while simultaneously fighting with the communist partisans in the Greek Civil War of 1946-1949. Thus, I was proving the controversy I alleged: Poulianos's conflicting biography.

Poulianos is a charlatan and a vagabond that promotes racist stereotypes. According to the article, after studying biology in the US and anthropology in the Soviet Union, Poulianos returned to Greece in 1965 where he became involved with the 700,000 year old "Greek" skull. However, the skull was found in 1960 by shepherds, whom eventually Poulianos came to regard as "associates." By the time Poulianos investigated it, 5 years later, it was contaminated. The article is filled with Poulianos's absurd claims like "12,000,000 year old human bones of the homo erectus trigliensis".[3] "Trigliensis" is a term coined by and used almost solely by Poulianos. No independent reference is provided. In support, the article mentions scientists "Ε. Breitinger" and "Ο. Sickenberg." The bizarre citations of "E." and "O." do not have any biographical links or references. A web search reveals nothing about them, unless they are mentioned in conjunction with Poulianos's racist theories. Chances are, Poulianos made them up.

As for Poulianos's membership in organizations that have generic names such as the "New York Academy of Sciences," no links and no indication of "New York" referring to the City or the State are provided. There is one exception: membership in the "Anthropological Association of Greece," a not-for-profit organization Poulianos founded and manages with his wife and son as a family business, which until 1982 had taken advantage of the Greek government to the tune of $10,000,000 in today's money (62,000,000 Drachmas around 1982), according to a source saying Poulianos had been investigated for tax evasion and fraud ("υπεξαίρεση"). Τhis is not mentioned in the article.

Finally, the article attributes the rebuttal and rejection of Poulianos's views by almost all the Greek Scientists to "organized anti-scientist and anti-Greek circuits that act mainly through government agents."[4] However, the quote is from Poulianos's Association website. Furthermore, Poulianos's wife is his biographer. So much for not mentioning political intrigue and being impartial!

Apparently, I had retained the capacity to edit English articles. Today, I worked on the Wikipedia Poulianos article. I noticed the disclaimer "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately" which does not apply to Βικιπαίδεια Poulianos's articles. I did a minor edit. Next to "Poulianos studied biology at the City University of New York between 1948 and 1952," I added "However, the City University of New York did not exist until 1961 when legislature enacted its creation." Amazingly, 15 minutes later, my revision was eliminated by Future Perfect at Sunrise to say "Poulianos studied biology at "Queen's College, New York and then anthropology in Moscow and earned his Ph.D in 1961." Besides the omission of dates, the phrase points to the person responsible for the change:  Poulianos and his family!  There is no "Queen's" College in CUNY but there is a "Queens" College.  The only persons referring to "Queens" with an apostrophe are the Poulianoses!  You will find the same error at his biography, written at Poulianos's association website at www.aee.gr/english/2apoulianos_biogr/apoul_biogr.html.  Clearly, Poulianos cannot tell "Queens" College from a hole in the wall.  Already, I am waiting on an inquiry I made at Queens College about a graduate named Poulianos circa 1949.

All this promotes the fallacy that Greeks are a superior breed, occupying Greece for millions of years and people like you are prohibiting Greeks from realizing their supremacy. Behind a thin veil of impartiality, your administrators are suspending me from reaching out to my fellow Greeks with the truth.

I am pleading you immediately suspend permanently Markellos, Ttzavaras and tony esopi and investigate Future Perfect at Sunrise. Besides, Greek admin Atlantia, whom I do not know and appears to have contributed very little to be an admin since 2007 (around 50 entries), wrote with additional threats, proving my theory the Greek admins are tightly-knitted conspirators. Further, because of multiple articles in other languages that appear to perpetuate the Poulianos fraud on Slavic editions of Wikipedia (e.g. at http://ru.wikipedia.org "Пулианос, Арис" "Пулианос учился с перерывами на факультете биологии в Queens College Нью Йорка с 1948 по 1952"), which again point to Poulianos as he speaks Russian, I ask that articles on Poulianos and related ones are permanently banned from all editions of Wikipedia because Poulianos is controversial and living. Otherwise, Poulianos is using these articles to perpetuate his fraud in Greece and abroad among my fellow Greeks, siphoning millions out of their pockets with fraudulent and racist theories. As for my part, I am attempting to bring together Queens College and the Greek government to validate Poulianos's educational credentials. I have already spoken with a Greek official as well. Finally, I am sending this letter to Poulianos. I want him to speak about the discrepancies in his education, contrary to your admins who felt justified to silence me from actively participating in Wikipedia.

Sincerely, I am

Mitch Fatouros

cc:  James L. Muyskens, President, Queens College; Pavlos Geroulanos, Secretary of Culture and Tourism, Republic of Greece; Aris Poulianos.

[1] "Έτσι συνηθίζετε στη χώρα που βρίσκεσαι?"

[2] "δεν είναι βέβαια η πρώτη φορά που καλύπτεσαι πίσω από μια ανώνυμη ΙΡ."

[3] "λείψανα ηλικίας 12 εκατομμυρίων ετών του homo erectus trigliensis."

[4] "οργανωμένα αντιεπιστημονικά και ανθελληνικά κυκλώματα, που δρουν κυρίως μέσω κρατικών οργάνων."


 * There's no indication that FPS vandalized the article, that I can see, so please be a little more careful in your accusations. Please also be careful what you say here (or elsewhere on Wikipedia) about Poulianos. There is a source cited in the article for the information about Poulianos' education, and that source uses the apostrophe in "Queen's" also. FPS said that source is where they got the information from, so your conclusion based on the apostrophe seems flawed. If you wish to email FPS, you would do so by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise ... I don't really see what else you are requesting to be done, or that there is any WP:BLP problem with the article in question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Aris Poulianos Evidence and Wikipedia Regulations Support My Claims against the Article
1. Even under your theory, "Queen's" is wrong. See disambiguation about Queens College on Wikipedia. See also external website of Queens College, New York. The apostrophe is an error.

2. Wikipedia, Vandalism:  "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." The dates of when Poulianos studied in the U.S. were removed. This is vandalism, unless you are basing it on the source of the bio which indeed, does not mention dates. Accordingly, see further below.

3. Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist." Claims of Greeks being 700,000 years older than modern man is sensationalism.

4. Wikipedia: "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself." The referenced bio is at

www.aee.gr/english/2apoulianos_biogr/apoul_biogr.html

The site and bio belongs to the ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF GREECE. Its home page at www.aee.gr states clearly a "Non profitable scientific society, founded by Dr Aris N. Poulianos." The biography is published or is under the control of the subject himself. As such, it must be scrutinized and be held to a higher standard.

5. Wikipedia: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as [...] personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:  it is not unduly self-serving;  it does not involve claims about third parties; the article is not based primarily on such sources."

The bio states "Since 1983 he becomes a target of cruel assaults by organized unscientific and anthellenic cycles, mainly acting through various state services." Self-serving and involves claims against and Greeks and the Greek government. Further, nothing is referenced in that bio and descriptions are generic.

6. Beyond, see footnote 12 on Wikipedia article, it states "ΣΤΗΝ ΤΡΙΓΛΙΑ ΧΑΛΚΙΔΙΚΗΣ ΒΡΕΘΗΚΕ Η ΑΠΟΛΙΘΩΜΕΝΗ ΚΝΗΜΗ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΥ 11 ΕΚΑΤΟΜΜΥΡΙΩΝ ΧΡΟΝΩΝ," no translation, it means "The Petrified drumstick of an ELEVEN (11) MILLION YEAR OLD Human was found In TrigLIa of Chalkidiki(!)"  It is a tabloid story, humans did not exist 11 million years ago. You will not locate the article in the referenced link as it is written in a confusing manner, with English Characters but in Greek. Its translation by Google almost impossible.

Conclusion: I have done nothing wrong. I deny your allegations and I ask that the article is immediately removed or you permit me to ad the note that the validity of the article is in dispute. Are you O.K. with that? I am O.K. with (and I would actually prefer) you add the validity question.

Thank you.

Greek Mitch (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just so, the apostrophe shouldn't be in the article.
 * in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia is the important text here.
 * The article does not make that claim; it merely reports that Poulianos made claims similar to that.
 * Reliable independent sources would indeed be preferable.
 * As I said, it would be preferable to use independent material, rather than that self-published source. The claims about "state services" are too vague to be of much concern.
 * That's not a great source either.


 * Perhaps you could suggest some better sources on the talk page for the article? Alternatively, if you feel that Poulianos is not notable enough for there to be an article about him on Wikipedia, you could nominate the article for deletion? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In response:

A. "The article does not make that claim; it merely reports that Poulianos made claims similar to that."

HOWEVER, Poulianos has based his ENTIRE career on the fraudulent and racist claim. This is Poulianos's claim to fame, he created the sensationalism. Can you find any other other scientist advocating the 700,000 year old Greek? Because of this central theme, Poulianos BLPs in the various versions of Wikipedia are sensationalistically self-serving and ought to be fixed, if not deleted.

B. "Reliable independent sources would indeed be preferable." The only reliable, independent source I found on Poulianos is because of the Article, see footnote 2, "Pontikos, Dienekes. Racial Type of the Ancient Hellenes. September 2006." I went looking in it. It is very well written in English, it will take you 2 minutes to look up "Poulianos." Poulianos is mentioned 3 times over 16 pages as a antrhopologist who had conducted metrics on a wide sample of Greeks. Based on that paper, Poulianos's did not even use the term "Greek" for ancient Greeks but calls us a mix of "Aegeans" and "Epirotics" which means a mix of people of the "sea" and the "land." Is this a new discovery about Greeks? However, he found a mix of other populations up to 20-30% among us. Why is not this mentioned? Racist Greek Supremacy perhaps? And what do Poulinos's metrics have to do with his fictional 700,000 year old Greek?

If Poulianos was impartial, I would consider him reliable. Having watched him ranting for an hour against the government in a documentary (see Greek version article but documentary is Greek), he is not. By the way, the top Greek Court finally ruled against him recently. Hence, we must use reliable sources.

C. "The claims about "state services" are too vague to be of much concern."

Read his bio again. He started his not-for-profit during the Greek Military Junta years in 1971. See Wikipedia article "Greek military junta of 1967–1974." He was supported by them. Now, he is fighting with a government democratically elected by the people. He claims the Junta prosecuted him but I can find any support for this claim as well besides Poulianos's own bio. However, all the extreme blogs that seem friendly towards the Junta regime and revising modern history, seem to support him. The same entities are also extremely anti-semetic. You have to take the bias into account because it is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."

Instead of deletion, I want you to mentor and help me rewrite it using impartial sources. Let's make it impartial. Then I shall take that result to the Greek and the other versions of Wikipedia. The people have a right to know about the controversy, particularly Greeks like myself. This can be the only objective source about Poulianos AND IT IS NEEDED!!! Your assignment, if you accept it, is to protect me when I am assailed. Because I am certain I will as I have already. Then, I can help with the Greek Wikipedia, where you guys need help desperately.

As for the reference about his education has to go. At least the part about being educated in the U.S. It is in doubt. Simply, the article can state "he is an anthropologist that has studied a wide sample of Greeks." Further, " Poulianos claims Greeks are older than Cro-magnon and Neanderthal while no other scientists are reported to support Poulianos's view." I am o.k. with just these two lines!

Is this a deal?

Greek Mitch (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Instead of deletion, I want you to mentor and help me rewrite it using impartial sources - which impartial sources did you have in mind?


 * no other scientists are reported to support Poulianos's view - Wikipedia doesn't report on what is not reported, it only reports on what is reported - or on what is reported not to have been reported. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

so far, two of the footnotes are impartial, one contradicts Poulianos's view, G. J. Hennig, W. Herr, E. Webert and N. I. Xirotiris. "ESR-dating of the fossil hominid cranium from Petralona Cave, Greece", Nature 292, 533-536

the other is the one from Ponticos, Footnote 2, see above.

also

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030544038290005X

"An early hominid skull found in Petralona Cave in Greece has been widely quoted by the archaeologist now excavating the cave as being about 700,000 years old. A recent volume of the journal Anthropos (Athens) carried several papers dealing with uranium series, thermoluminescence, ESR and palaeomagnetic studies on material from Petralona. Careful reading of these papers shows that there are problems with all these methods when applied to material from this site and that it is not possible at present to give an age for deposits in the cave. In this paper we discuss each technique in the light of current knowledge."

All views from blogs and Poulianos's own site must be eliminated, pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines about higher scrutiny.

what is reported must come from objective sources and entities outside Poulianos's control.

Further, a Greek user alleged I cannot use articles from international versions of Wikipedia. ("Επιπλέον, η έκδοση του Γκρίκ Μίτς δεν έχει καθόλου πηγές για τα λεγόμενα της (οι άλλες βικιπαίδιες δεν αποτελούν πηγές) και δεν έχει καμία θέση σε άρθρο,"). This statement does not sound right but the 4 Greek admins involved did not object to it (that is why I question their impartiality). Is this correct, that I cannot reference other, international Wikipedia articles? I would like to reference the predominant theories on Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal through Wikipedia articles, always in an impartial way. In other words, the bios must be stripped of anything that is irrelevant and under the control of Poulianos and radical bloggers.

However, most of bloggers quote your Poulianos's articles now! This is why the article must become objective.

Poulianos is questioning the evolution of the human race. How scientific is that?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

"Petralona 1, Homo sapiens (archaic) Discovered by villagers at Petralona in Greece in 1960. Estimated age is 250,000-500,000 years. It could alternatively be considered to be a late Homo erectus, and also has some Neandertal characteristics. The brain size is 1220 cc, high for erectus but low for sapiens, and the face is large with particularly wide jaws. (Day 1986)"

further http://www.archeo.uw.edu.pl/en/zalaczniki/upload23.pdf

and

"In 1960, Greece joined in the panoply of European archaic human sites, with the discovery of a robust but large cranium in a cave at Petralona. Dating this fossil has long posed a challenge, but most recently it has been estimated to be 200,000 years old. (See figure 28.9.) "

Lewin, Human Evolution.

All these studies that seem impartial do not mention Poulianos. Your call if it should be deleted, although you will be doing us a service if the article gets stripped of information provided by Poulianos. Certainly, the 700,000 year claim is not supported in these sources, unless

1. they quote Poulianos, or 2. they are written from a creationist point of view to contradict Darwin.

But Wikipedia cannot rely on those sources.

Greek Mitch (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Talking with you, I am beginning to understand how to edit the articles. For example, see where it says Poulianos is a member of a the "Council of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences" in UNESCO. I just gave a call to UNESCO in New York. They have no Councils in UNESCO. The want to know more about Poulianos and they referred me to their Attorney in France. However, I cannot use that. Instead, I can either

A. Eliminate the sentence explaining in a note this is a fictitious entity within UNESCO. Or B. make a note the point is in question.

Can I do either?

HOWEVER, what I can do for certain is bring to the attention of UNESCO's that Poulianos uses Wikipedia to replicate the fabrication. It turns out the only sites that mention the "Council of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences" are the ones mentioning Poulianos's Wikipedia Biography!

Greek Mitch (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Final Entry on Poulianos
By now you should have taken the initiative and changed the apostrophe. You admitted it. But you did not. This is 1 indication you will not upset other admins even if they are wrong.

I have forwarded this case to the associate counsel of Wikipedia, besides a direct email to Jimbo because I believe Wikepedia is denigrated by fraud perpetuated through Wikipedia and replicated throughout the web, while Wikipedia admins propagated it actively or by remaining indifferent.

Further appropriate course is that am alerting UNESCO as I was told by UNESCO to do, being that they do not have a "council" as Poulianos alleges and they are actively fighting scams involving their good reputation. Which means, they will ask Wikipedia about it. I presume the same applies to Queens College.

As far as I can tell, Wikipedia reeks with fraud that people like Poulianos create articles on Wikipedia to create a mythology about them for their own financial benefit. I remind you what happened on the Steven Colbert show, where Steven demonstrated how easy it was to pervert Wikipedia articles.

Wikipedia administrators suspend anyone who brings all this to their attention.

Signing off suspended or not. Your loss, I save time.

Greek Mitch (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, serious case of tl;dr here (and I wasn't notified). Just for the outside readers: the biography of Aris Poulianos has in the past repeatedly been a BLP problem. The subject of the article is a archaeologist/palaeontologist of, let's say, unorthodox views, and the article has oscillated between glorification and ridicule at several points. Currently it seems to be keeping a relatively decent middle ground, but it is true that the detail of the biographical information relies heavily on the subject's own web page. The particular detail Greek Mitch picked out about the subject's early studies seemed to me to be a fairly harmless plausible mistake (the guy said on his webpage he studied at college X; our article had turned that into saying he studied at university system Y, when in reality college X had only become part of university system Y a decade or so later; there was also an overlap of one year between two parts of his biography that would appear mutually exclusive), but the overall gist of the biography seems plausible enough. The fact that he later studied in Moscow seems unproblematic, because (if I remember correctly) it was easily testable that he actually did his PhD there. – If somebody wants to cut back on the article on BLP grounds, I have no obejctions. Greek Mitch seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the subject of the article; partly understandably so (I might say I'd personally tend to agree with the view the guy is a charlatan), but obviously we run into a problem if we let him "fix" the BLP according to his liking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I find your response less than sincere because:

A. You deleted a date and you have not reinstated it.

B. The few objective footnotes added to the BLP are the ones objecting to the theory.

C. The ones supporting the BLP are primarily based on a study Poulianos conducted in 1981. THE BLP IS SLANTED.

D. You still do not know that Queens College does not take an apostrophe, why edit what you do not know?

My SLANTED AND BIASED GREEK VIEW (FEEL FREE TO DELETE): It hurts me, really I am bleeding, watching my fellow Greeks destroying ourselves. Based on neutral sources, the finding of the skull was of stupendous value! It is 200,000-300,000 years old and probably, I have share some of that person's genes. The problem is that a charlatan is usurping control over it and Wikipedia has become his free-ride vehicle for fraud. STOP HIM!

PROPOSE: In good faith, I will work with you to make ALL Poulianos's BPLs objective. Greeks must be able to have a balance view that does not rely on Poulianos. As for his education, the U.S. part be deleted on two grounds.

1. Confusion about when he attended and what school he attended.

2. According to the Greek BPL, he studied Biology solely in the U.S. while he is an anthropologist. Thus, we can eliminate it as irrelevant to the object of his career. I am o.k. with.

I am reasonable. Let me trust you are not associated with Poulianos. Because unfortunately, as an objective observation, on your discussion page, where I could not leave a message, I noticed several users with Slavic or Slavonic names had left you messages. That is another group Poulianos targets with his BPLs on Wikipedia. You may wish to dispel the notion of association with a charlatan. Let me know if you want a copy of the final letter to Wikipedia and their counsel and how to send it to you. Not a threat, just a fact what I have already done. It gives my view of what you did.

Greek Mitch (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh. LOL. Here on Wikipedia it seems it's my fate to be alternately identified as a member of the Turkish secret service, a member of a "Greek nationalist Wikipedia junta", a member of an Albanian tag-team, or somebody in the pay of the government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Skopje ή όπως αλλιώς θέλετε πέστε την . Whatever. If you want to know what I think of that article, look at what I tried to do five years ago but failed to get consensus for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You may LOL, but I am not convinced about your impartiality.

I tend to look at facts. Instead of opinions, I looked up the type of articles you edit. That could give me an objective idea about you. You see, it hit me: why did you undo my change within 15 minutes, unless you have been guarding the article?

Ethnologically, you appear to be working on two groups of articles: Greek and Slavic. Further, you have been involved with the Poulianos article almost since its inception (I may be wrong but at least since 2006, you have worked on the article).

I wonder, why the interest? Is it a coincidence you have the same interests with Poulianos and his family about Slavs and Greeks ethnologically?

I do not understand your participation in the Greek dialects article that names Bulgarian as a dialect. Bulgrians being a group that Poulianos had determined similar to Greeks and culturally (not necessarily ethnologically), I believe they are extremely close to Greeks. The article that calls "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" Greek dialects should go, or has to be changed to "Languages Spoken In Greece." And there is no "Macedonian" language, not even a dialect. If anything, the FYROM language is an idiom, just like Greeks in Crete have an idiom, unlike the difference of Ancient and Modern Greek, which are dialects. See videos of Slavi Trivonov where he makes fun of the other Bulgarian "dialect."

Thanks for the / * code change. I took the liberty of changing something in what you said. I like the touch you added to it.

So, how come you share Poulianos's interests and why are you watching article? I may attempt to bring it in order, I am not sure yet.

Greek Mitch (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You know what, it takes you too long to answer. I will challenge you. I will edit the article and delete with explanations on every deletion. Let's see if you reinstate them. After all, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I am sure you will be hearing from Jimbo about this anyway, whatever you decide. I am under the impression some action was taken with the Greek admins.

Greek Mitch (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Downey
This BLP article has been done at the behest of the living person to help her promote herself. The claims made about her in the article are hardly noteworthy, are not offered from a neutral point of view, and are probably no longer verifiable.

Quite a few of the listed references come from articles that were penned by the living person or come from websites supported by her and used to promote herself and her personal causes. Other articles are taken from the local newspaper in her area where they were reporting on publicity stunts generated by the living person to promote herself and those causes.

The article is also incomplete and omits quite a few controversies that accompanied the projects that she has been involved in. None of the controversies are worthy in themselves of Wikipedia coverage, but are significant exceptions to many of the claims and accomplishments listed on this page. For instance, the "Tree of Knowledge" reference listed in the article refers to a Christmas display that was subsequently rejected and discontinued by the County of Westchester, PA. (I would list the on-line references to this event, but the websites appear to be on Wikipedia's blacklist.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblemouse (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could add the information Richard Dawkins included in The God Delusion about her work  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any evidence for your claim 'This BLP article has been done at the behest of the living person to help her promote herself'? The primary author appears to be User:JoshuaZ who has been a user for a long time and his editing history suggests he may have a personal interest in the subject matter so I don't see any reason to think he was doing it on the behest of the LP to help her promote herself. Please note if you don't have good evidence, it's probably not a good idea to make a claim which may negatively affect the reputation of two living people on the BLP/N. Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

John J Nance, and the "discussions" section of my listing.
I am John J. Nance, and I am hereby filing a complaint that will accelerate into a libel action against the individual who continues to post a diatribe against my writings and has done so with clear malice and intent to defame. This individual's personal animosity is based on his misguided opinion that airline deregulation was a boon to the U.S., and that anyone who disagrees must be attacked. This concerns such a small part of my overall body of work as an author, lecturer, broadcaster, pilot, and military officer as well as entrepreneur, that continuous contamination of my biographical listing in wikipedia with his hysterical opinions, as well as his slanderous observations of my attempts to correct the record are, in the first instance, wholly unworthy of this project; and secondly, simply a personal attack without merit. I request that his entire commentary be permenently removed, or that at least his continuous "reversions" of any corrections I make be blocked and his ability to affect this site be barred. While I reserve the right to proceed against this individual in tort (and I am a licensed attorney in Texas ) at any time due to the continuous and notorious nature of his postings, I would prefer to resolve the problem by having his ravings removed permanently. Please contact my law office at (Redacted) regarding this matter. john J. Nance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.236.190 (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not make legal threats. If you have an issue with an article, the first place to try to resolve it is the article's talk page. If that fails, this page is the next stop. Having said that, and having read the article, which bits are you objecting to specfically? – ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I had to guess, I'd say he objects to reverts like this one from 2008 (!). That was the last version that might possible meet the IP's description.  There are comments on the talk page from around then that I suspect the IP dislikes.  It appears that Mr. Nunce had a WP account -  who was blocked for NLT as well.  The article now is much better than it was in 2008.  Could probably archive the talk page, which gets the comments out of immediate view.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a strange one, as Mr. Nance (assuming that the IP editor is actually him) is all-of-a-sudden very upset about a dispute about the article that took place in late 2008. Traces of that dispute remain on the article's talk page, but the article itself is now relatively neutral and contains nothing that I see as especially problematic.


 * Mr. Nance, if your are reading this, I offer some friendly advice from one individual Wikipedian: You can pursue legal action as is your right, or you can try to resolve your concerns through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.  However, you can't do both at the same time.  Many editors active at this notice board will try to help you resolve your concerns in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but only if you unambiguously withdraw all legal threats for now.  If you do so, then I am sure that an administrator will unblock you so that you can contribute to discussion about your article.  However, I encourage you to learn about how we deal with people who edit articles about themselves.  Please also learn about our expectations about dealing with conflicts of interest, and how everything that may be disputed in an article must be based on reliable sources and not on any form of original research.  Please realize that because you are a public figure, you are not entitled to control the article about you, although your input on the talk page is welcomed.  We call that attitude ownership here, and it is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia.  Finally, we expect that you will not insult other editors.  We expect you to assume good faith of other editors, even those you disagree with.  Civility is one of our basic policies.  So, the choice is yours.  If you withdraw all legal threats, we are here to work with you.  Feel free to ask questions, either here or on my talk page.  I bid you peace.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  02:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As Ravensfire notes, was indef-blocked 2 1/2 years ago for making legal threats. Presumably it's the same guy, back making the same threats. So it's deja vu all over again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Destorm
People keep editing this wiki with false information. They keep changing the subject's name and adding false birth dates. The confirmed birth name for the subject is Destorm Power, not the other names that have been added to the wiki i.e. Demetrius, Derek, etc. I will update it with the correct information right now, could you please make sure it doesn't get removed? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylaiva (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted the article to help ensure the contentious information is not restored without reliable sources for verification. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 01:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Corwin Brown
There is a death date listed in the first line of his bio. However, there is no source cited that he has, in fact, died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.231.163 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, death dates should never be added without proper sourcing. I've removed the date as right now the situation seems to be totally unclear; the are reports of Mr Brown's home being surrounded by police and shots being fired, but it seems unclear if Mr Brown is even in the house, let alone if anyone died there. --Six words (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Websites of many reliable sources are now reporting that Corwin Brown has been hospitalized with a gunshot wound after a standoff with police. I see no reliable reports of his death at this time.  No need to rush on this - wait for reliable sources that report on official statements, and write conservatively and judiciously.  The basic facts will emerge over the next day or two.   Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Chris Mullin (basketball)
Racial (White this and that) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.96.190 (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some more details on the problems with the article? -- Jayron  32  05:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Tyrese Gibson
This page has an extreme amount of false information, specifically in the Awards & Nominations section. Seems like a prank to put in strange words in wrong places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJohanis42 (talk • contribs)
 * - I'll look into it and see.  JoeGazz  ♂ 15:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Peter Palumbo, Baron Palumbo
Odd recent edit history over at Peter Palumbo, Baron Palumbo: vast expansion of the article last night, which at first glance looks as if it could be a hatchet job, followed some hours later by a proposed deletion by a new account, giving the reason "Lord Palumbo himself has seen his Wikipedia page and has decided categorically to delete it. He wishes to take no further part in Wikipedia and very much disagrees with the page's existence. He asks that the Wikipedia community respect his wishes and apologises for any inconveniences caused."

I considered contesting and simply reverting to the revision as of 3 August 2011, but thought perhaps some extra eyes would be of use, given the apparent sensitivity of the subject's feelings on the issue. --88.104.47.107 (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored the article back to April of this year, which is before most of the COI edits and the very weird addition of contentious material with most unorthodox sourcing methods. I have removed the prod tag because the reason given is not a valid one. The restored version is unsourced, which is a significant problem. I will look at it to remove any material that is contentious and add a tag. Other eyes would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this fall under biographies of people who are marginally notable, where we take into account the subject's wishes to delete the article? Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Cameron Mitchell (singer)
This is not an urgent request, but I'd appreciate it if someone could keep an eye on that article for a few days. There was a flurry of edits yesterday, mostly harmless, but sourced to unreliable sources (some regarding his dating history) and other assorted fancruft. I'm a little concerned that his growing online fan base might continue to insert rumors or cruft. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll watchlist it and keep a close eye on it. Thanks for the heads up.  JoeGazz  ♂ 12:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Barney Glaser
I have worked carefully with one of your editors, MaterialScientist, to carefully and objectively create a small addition to the biography of Barney Glaser. The material is all based on a court case, from the public court system of California. The relevant document is sourced, and I have a copy in my possession. Continuing to edit out these few sentences is censorship. Dr. Glaser has had an important history in his post-academic life and this is relevant to people who wish to know about him.

I have not called him any named, or committed any libel. Only facts from the court case are presented.


 * I trust you understand that Wikipedia is not censoring you in any way. Just as you are able to add information, another editor is able to remove it.  That's how this process works.  You've got a very determined editor removing the information, and eventually they will probably end up blocked.  Focusing on the information you're trying to add, I'd start by getting a better source.  Especially on a WP:BLP, court documents can be problematic.  At most they should be supplementary.  You're using it as your only source for everything you add.  A quick look through Google turned up this which covers just about everything.  I suspect you're wanting to keep the court doc for the quote about fraud as it's pretty powerful.  I'd summarize things using the Bakersfield.com source for most of the info, then say that the bankruptcy court believed CAC had been insolvent for several years and had concerns about fraudulent conveyance.  Beyond that you're getting into WP:UNDUE territory, especially trying to base it off of a single primary source.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and summarized the information based on the secondary source. Sourcing fraud to a primary source in a BLP is beyond what I'm comfortable doing, so I've left it out.  Please leave that out until other editors express views here.  If the IP reverts again, I'll file a WP:AN3 report.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And after his last revert, AN3 report filed - WP:AN3 Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do please let us know if that doesn't seem to do the trick. Lots of people reading, but for now you seem to have the situation well under control - let us know if not :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Eddie & JoBo
This edit should be removed from the page's history. Not only is it potentially slanderous, but it also contains the names of the subject's children - possibly minors - who should not be included in the encyclopedia. Striker force Talk Review me! 08:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Jane Fonda


I would like to get some feedback on the following addition:. It is being argued that since the original source of the quote cannot be found it cannot be included in the article, despite the numerous references to it on many WP:RS's and a lack of any sources that challenge it. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia actually prefers secondary and WP:Independent sources for things like this; they show that the quotation is worth mentioning. The absence of (for example) a publicly available recording of the original speech is therefore irrelevant.
 * If the fact that she said this had been seriously disputed in reliable sources, then that would need to be mentioned, or considered as a reason to remove it under WP:UNDUE. However, the mere fact that the WP:PRIMARY source isn't easily available is irrelevant.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This has all the hallmarks of a phony quotation. There are no identifiable contemporaneous news reports found that verify the quote, or even that Fonda gave a speech at the supposed site (Michigan State University). In fact, these "reliable" sources give at least two different dates (1969 and 1970, typically on November 22, the anniversary of the JFK assassination, which seems a bit convenient), and at least two different locations (Duke and MSU). It looks like the first press reports of it turn up in 1972, after Fonda's notorious sojourn to North Vietnam. Fonda said and did a lot of stupid things, and they were generally reported by the press as they happened. The reliably-documented ones are all we need to write a comprehensive article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like a well-referenced fact, to me; it's widely reported in numerous reliable sources - to revert it as "unsourced or poorly sourced" when it has a book ref and NY Times isn't good. It might not be true, but it's not our job to judge that; the text actually stated According to several sources (indicating the potential doubt). If there's some RS actually claiming it might not be true, then fair enough, we could explain that - possibly a footnote?
 * As to whether it is appropriate per WP:UNDUE...that's another matter entirely, and could be discussed on the talk page. But from what I've seen, I don't know why you think it isn't reliably documented. We don't need to work out who originally reported it.
 * But I do suggest more discussion, input from others, before reinstating it of course.  Chzz  ►
 * Our BLP policy needs to be paramount. If we think it's not true, it shouldn't be in a BLP even if we can verify that others have said she said it. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The supposed "New York Times" ref appears to be an online reader's comment. As for being "well-referenced," when an inflammatory quotation like this is reported without contemporaneous evidence, but with multiple inconsistent dates and locations attached, that's not exactly a signal of reliable reporting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Bloch/Umansky book published by NYU Press confirms the quote on page 246. This book is a fine source to use for a BLP; the only source needed for including the quote. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's silly. If it were the only report, perhaps. But the existence of multiple, contradictory reports undermines the reliability of the entire set. There's a notorious fake Lincoln quote that was often cited in "reliable" sources, including many books, until Ronald Reagan used it in a speech, leading to such widespread public debunking that it's now only rarely trotted out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Coming late here, but I agree with Hellaballoo, this is just too poorly sourced and given that I don't think the Block/Umansky book should be seen as reliable for this. If it came from Lee Winfrey where is the original? Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just read the talk page (should have read that first) and it seems even more dubious, I note for instance Binksternet has changed his mind. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed I have changed my mind. There are too many conflicting versions of this quote to sort out the truth. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

On Nov. 21, 1970 she told a University of Michigan audience of some 2,000 students, "If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist." At Duke University in North Carolina she repeated what she had said in Michigan, adding "I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to communism." I kept checking for a reliable source in the news, and found this thankfully. That clears things up.  D r e a m Focus  00:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Washington Times says this.


 * Good job, DreamFocus. That's not only 1 reliable source, but 2. -- Avanu (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That Bruce Herschensohn column looks like an opinion piece rather than a news article.   Will Beback    talk    00:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no indication in the article where the reporter gathered the information. I don't think that this Washington Times article helps in the slightest. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that Washington Times piece is an opinion piece and we never use opinion pieces for BLPs (and Washington Times is notoriously unreliable in such articles anyway, simply repeating rumors and half-truths found on the internet without fact-checking or attribution). This clearly is not good enough for highly contentious factual claims. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Continued the discussion on the proper talk page. Verifiability not truth, is Wikipedia's policy.  Ample reliable sources have been stating this for decades now.   D r e a m Focus  06:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tawana Brawley rape allegations
After Brawley's rape allegations were shown to be false, she withdrew from the public eye. She has since joined the Nation of Islam and changed her name. Is it appropriate to mention those facts in this article, or does WP:BLP preclude it? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think her later life should be mentioned. If she has changed her name, she may be trying to disconnect from an earlier negative experience. She is not a public figure who needs to be followed with successive developments in her life unless they are strictly connected to the earlier incident that was in the public eye. I think we should be presuming privacy is called for. She was also quite young when she was in the public spotlight. Life changes a lot with the transition to adulthood. Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is an article about a notable incident that happened a long time ago.  It is not a biography that ought to describe every event of her life. Let's respect her privacy now.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  02:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As the subject of the article was a major events, very well publicized by TB and her supporters, and had a significant impact upon race relations in the US, a continuing interest in the person is justified. People quite reasonably want to know the later life, and there can be no possible presumption of privacy about her in general. That she joined the Nation of Islam & changed her name is relevant information if unequivocally reliably sourced; where the presumption of privacy does hold, is what she changed her name to. Perhaps this was the intend of the comment here.    DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You say that the event "…had a significant impact upon race relations in the US". I highly doubt that. It was an event but I don't think a case could be made that it had any impact on anything at all—and that is primarily the point. This is not an article about Tawana Brawley. It is merely an article about an incident that inflamed racial tensions. But that incident is entirely over. This article is titled "Tawana Brawley rape allegations". There were allegations of rape and they involved Tawana Brawley. The nature of the case was such that it highlighted injustices perceived and real on two sides of a black-white divide. The case was a flare-up that has since disappeared. We must not confuse one incident with ongoing interest in anything related to that incident however tenuously. Tawana Brawley is not a public figure and never was a public figure. It doesn't matter what transpires in her life subsequent to the incident which took place in 1987. Why would it matter if a non-notable person changed their name? Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tawana Brawley is a hoaxter, as determined by a grand jury and by defamation lawsuits. Being a hoaxter means that she intentionally performed activities that were designed to put her in the public's eye (and even if she didn't intend such at first, she could not have continued the hoax later without intending it).  It seems to me that intentionally putting oneself in the public eye has to make someone a public figure, at least for the purpose of related subjects.  And it's not like we're reporting that she took up stamp collecting; the events of her later life that are being reported are about a related subject.  If a bank robber later joined an organization that promotes the idea that bank robbery is beneficial to society, we probably should report it.  Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @DGG, I know that the Brawley affair had a significant impact upon race relations in the New York area, but I'm not sure anybody outside the New York area has ever heard of Brawley.
 * @Ken, I don't agree. The facts of her later life are that she moved 300 miles away, changed her name, and converted to a different religion. That is like taking up stamp collecting. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * She engaged in an incident of race-baiting. SAhe then joined a religion most prominently known for its connection to race relations.  Sounds relayed to me. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Nation of Islam is an African American organization and Tawana Brawley is an African American. There is no significance to Tawana Brawley joining the Nation of Islam except any significance that might be gratuitously read into it. The question becomes: why are we mentioning this extraneous piece of information in our article? Are we trying to make a point? What point are we trying to make? The only subject that attains the level of noteworthiness qualifying itself for an article is the incident. The individual, Tawana Brawley, would not qualify, in terms of noteworthiness, for an article on her alone on Wikipedia. It is only the circumstances of the incident that thrust her into the spotlight. Therefore her ongoing life should not be subject to continual coverage unless something significant came to light relating her to the original incident. Merely joining an African American organization hardly qualifies as something that puts the original incident into a new and revised framework. Rather we should be concerned that a private individual not be tracked by Wikipedia, years after an incident, in ways that might be irksome to someone who has not attained the level of notability that would qualify them for a standalone article on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. Wikipedia shouldn't concern itself with people's religion, or with any other personal issues, except in as much it relates to their notability, particularly when it involves persons who became notable as minors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. At WP:NOTE we find: "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." That is from the "This page in a nutshell" box at the top of that page. Further down that page I find a section called "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article". The very first sentence of that section reads: "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation." Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP does moreover limit what should be in articles covered by BLP concerns. And one limitation is that material should be of some importance to the biography.  Not often I see a person disagreeing with a person who agreed with what they had written, to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Collect—I am not sure what your last sentence is saying—"Not often I see a person disagreeing with a person who agreed with what they had written, to be sure." But this is not strictly speaking an article about Tawana Brawley. BLP concerns certainly apply. Any editor can argue that the title of the article should be "Tawana Brawley". But the title of the article presently is "Tawana Brawley rape allegations", and I have not heard any editor arguing thus far for changing the title of the article. It may very well be that BLP considerations led to the present title. But even if no such considerations went into the choosing of the present title, its present form serves to take focus somewhat off Ms Brawley. The title says that this article is primarily about "…rape allegations". I fail to see how joining the Nation of Islam and changing the name have bearing on "rape allegations". BLP calls for high quality sources. We have a high quality source—but it doesn't matter—because this is not an article primarily about Ms Brawley. BLP says: "…it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives…" There is nothing particularly "sensationalist" or "titillating" about joining an organization or changing one's name—but it doesn't matter—because this is not an article that focusses on Ms Brawley. BLP concerns make their presence known in the title—whether that title was chosen out of BLP concerns or not. In my opinion, some of the most applicable BLP concerns at this article are a direct consequence of the title: it is not an article about Ms Brawley, so why should we be tracking relatively inconsequential developments in her life twenty years after the "rape allegations" which are the focus of the article? Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The cite for her becoming Muslim clearly connects it to the rape case - and also includes claims by her parents that she would be protected by any mosque in the world. In short - the cite is absolutely and clearly germane to the article at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What cite are you referring to? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading over this, I'm inclined to agree with DGG here; what she's done later in life is directly related to this hoax. She moved 300 miles and changed her name because of the fallout of this whole case; I certainly think that if she's the primary topic of this hoax, the effect it's had on her should be mentioned.  At the risk of violating WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, there is some mention of what happened to Rodney King after the riots in the Rodney King riots article.  Obviously not quite the same thing, but I think the logic still applies.  Full disclosure; I'm from Fairfield County, CT, which is certainly in the New York area. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe a short blurb on her current situation is warranted. Also, I live in Oregon and was quite small at the time, but I still was aware of the TB thing. It was big news across the nation, not just in NY. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to say presumption in favour of privacy outweighs the other concerns here, because she was a minor at the time she became notable. Presumption in favour of privacy becomes an even more definite concern when it comes to mentioning her new name; I would be against it. -- J N  466  22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't necessarily have to say what her new name is, just that she decided to change it and join the nation of Islam. That'll show how the fallout of the hoax affected her without necessarily invading her privacy.  You kinda lose your right to that level of privacy when you deliberately whip up a media circus; the fact that she was a minor then is somewhat immaterial, because she's an adult now.  I get where you're coming from, but that doesn't absolve her of her notability for instigating this hoax.  If Wikipedia were around in WWII, it wouldn't be any different than mentioning that Mark Rothkowitz (see where it redirects to) had changed his name without mentioning it (at least until he began publishing his works under that name). The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 00:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Finished at 01:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not be in the business of meting out retribution. The Blade of the Northern Lights reasons that, "You kinda lose your right to that level of privacy when you deliberately whip up a media circus…" I haven't seen that in WP:BLP policy. And I also read above, "That'll show how the fallout of the hoax affected her…" Do we really know that there is any connection between joining the Nation of Islam and the 1987 rape allegations? They seem utterly unrelated to me. I'm not sure why we are considering following her around 20 years after the incident to report unrelated developments in her life. That is an invasion of privacy. She is a non-notable individual according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. I think arguing for inclusion of the fact of her joining the Nation of Islam should be pursued by arguing for a title change to just her name. The name of the article isn't just "Tawana Brawley" (though there is a redirect) and we should respect that. Bus stop (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not "meting out retribution" any more than mentioning that Rodney King ran his record label into the ground and had several additional arrests in the Rodney King riots article; that's not at all related to what made him notable, but it's true and received significant media attention. I also haven't seen in BLP policy that we pretend things didn't happen just because the subject doesn't want people to know, even if it's verifiable (and it is).  Again, DGG, Peregrine Fisher, Ken, and I aren't saying we need to reveal her name, just mention that she has changed it.  Ken above explained why it was significant, and not just like taking up stamp collecting. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Just as a side note; when I say you lose your right to that level of privacy, I'm not talking in a Wikipedia sense, more at a general level.  The media will pay more attention to you if you deliberately grab their limelight, whether you want the extra attention or not; that's inevitable.
 * Revealing her new name is irrelevant. It doesn't matter one way or the other. We aren't discussing secrecy. We are discussing the propriety of privacy. That starts with whether or not we add that she has joined the Nation of Islam. You mention receiving "significant media attention." I don't think we are concerned with this because this is not an article about Tawana Brawley. I respect that you are not speaking about privacy in the Wikipedia sense, but I think it would be a good exercise for Wikipedia to try to hone standards above the general media. I think the Rodney King article is misnamed. A title should distinguish between an incident and an individual. Bus stop (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Blade, I'd agree with you if she had been an adult at the time. But she was a minor, and minors are not held responsible for their actions in the same way as adults. -- J N  466  12:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)