Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive131

James O'Keefe
This BLP needs substantial reworking for NPOV. The article subject is clearly a controversial figure who inspires a great deal of ire among political adversaries, and this article very much shows that. Several recent contributors to the article have insisted on reinserting potentially libelous material, making broad conclusions about ongoing controversies in the encyclopedic voice, and reverting edits (diff) made to address some of these problems. Rather than provoking more edit-warring, I would like to get some additional eyes on this material and some additional (less acrimonious) voices on the talk page so the article can be improved. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could be more specific as to what you perceive as an NPOV violation, or as "potentially libelous material". The only diff you have provided shows that you attempted to change content from accurately conveying that "Investigations by legal authorities and journalists" came to conclusions that you would rather inaccurately attribute to mere "critics" — in direct contradiction to the reliably sourced content in the body of the article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the statement in the lead: "Investigations by legal authorities and journalists have found his videos to have been "selectively" and "deceptively" edited to leave a false impression and present the subjects in the worst possible light." The only cite for that statement is an article by Michael Gerson, which hardly supports the broad sweep of the assertion. If you are contending that the assertion is supported in the body, there are at least three problems with that contention. First, where? Second, although you don't always have to put citations in the lead for assertions that are cited in the body, if you DO put in citations, it's somewhat misleading if the citations are not fully supportive of what you're saying. Third, according to WP:LEADCITE: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." AND "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement." For me, at least, the lead assertion begs the questions what "legal authorities", what "journalists", and what precisely what conclusions? The words "selectively" and "deceptively" come only from the Gerson article (although they are used as adjectives, not adverbs) in the cited source.


 * The next sentence in the lead is also problematic: "He uses quotes out of context, moves material around chronologically, and together creates what Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, characterized in the NPR sting as an "alluring lie." Again, you cite only to the Gerson article. Yet, although you attribute the phrase "alluring lie" to Gerson, you don't attribute the rest, even though, again, it's only Gerson saying so in the cited source.


 * You may have sufficient support for your statements, but I'd clean up the lead. Either don't cite anything and be prepared to support the assertions with cites within the body, or cite more things in the lead to make it clear that it's supportable.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bbb23, is your argument that there are cites, but not enough in the lead? Thanks - KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 19:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * KC, a lot has happened since I left Wikipedia yesterday and came back today. My argument wasn't really quite the way you frame it, but I'm not sure it matters. I haven't looked at all of the changes to the article since yesterday, but I agree that the cites added by Xenophrenic to the lead and the rewording of the next sentence in the lead resolve my issues with that part of the lead (I'm deliberately being very narrow here because the article is rich in both content and controversy).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 and the original poster are making two completely different arguments here. I've addressed Bbb23's concerns by copying several reference citations from the body of the article into the lead of the article, so as to make more clear in the lead "what legal authorities and journalists" and "what conclusions" were drawn.  I've also reworded the first paragraph so that it is more clear that the "uses quotes out of context" and "moves material around chronologically" descriptions are conclusions arrived at by said legal authorities and journalists, as well as reiterated by Gerson.


 * DickClarkMises, on the otherhand, rather than express a concern about the proper citing of statements of fact as Bbb23 has done, incorrectly characterizes the content as "libelous material", "broad conclusions" and "ongoing controversies". His more recent edits further convey his belief that the carefully considered conclusions of legal agencies such as the Brooklyn, NY, District Attorney's Office or the Office of the Attorney General of California, after many months of research and investigation, are not factual conclusions but mere "accusations". I'm really at a loss as to how to address that. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I had brought this issue up earlier as well. Part of the problem is the insistance to use weasel words to describe the maginitude of the editing, which I thought was resolved.  Now those weasel words are being added with "scare" quotes.  While some specific videos have been described "heavily" edited and such, this has not been the word used for all of them, and now the additional weasel words of "selectively" and "deceptively" have been added as a describer of all.  I do not understand why a few editors feel it neccessary to force these words into the lead for dramatic effect when a simple statement of "edited" suffices, especially when words later the findings of the DA are reported as to how they were edited specifcially.  I don't approve of his actions either, but that does not mean we get a free pass at him.  Arzel (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue that "the simple statement of edited" and "deceptively edited" are significantly different from each other. Just saying "edited" (and most video is indeed innocuously "edited" before publishing) misleads the reader, when the intent is to convey that the video was actually edited to deceive . Xenophrenic (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How they were edited is followed up in the following sentence. "Selectively Edited" means absolutely nothing and is terrible grammer.  To edit is to selectively put togeter disparate pieces of information.  It is clear from reading the very next sentence that what he did is not right, why do you wish to belabor the point?  The other word "Heavily" only applies to one specific instance, please stop adding it to imply that it is in reference to all of the videos.  Arzel (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "First, you are mistaken: just google "selectively edited" and you'll see it is a common expression with a fairly well-defined meaning. Second, the adjectives are not there to "belabor the point", but to indicate directly quoted (not "scare quotes", as you mistakenly assumed) conclusions by investigating parties. Third, "heavily edited" has been used by reliable sources to describe both NPR and ACORN videos; but "severely edited" is also sourced if you prefer. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase "Heavily" applies to only one video, why do you and your tag team partner insist on using it for dramatic effect? You use the adjective "selectively" and then in the next sentence list out.  It is repetitive, extacly what do you not understand about that?  It is ironic that you are attempting to present O'Keefe in the worst light possible with your edits when that is exactly what he is accused of doing.  Arzel (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase "Heavily edited" applies to several O'Keefe videos, and no amount of bold lettering will turn your falsifications into fact. Some reliable sources describe specific videos as Heavily edited, like the Medicaid, NPR, Planned Parenthood and the many ACORN videos.  Other reliable sources describe O'Keefe's video projects, as a whole, as heavily edited. Other reliable sources describe just the more well known of the videos as heavily edited. I see that you have asked me several questions, but you have couched them amid your usual personal attacks and commentary about editors — so instead of responding to you further, I think I'll just put a rhetorical question to you: How's that working out for you?  I'm reverting your unwarranted deletion. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out to you numerous times those are almost all opinions. The wording you use in the lead makes it a statement of fact.  This is a BLP violation.  The only one which was stated as a matter of fact was the one video reviewed by the DA.  As I have stated before, I don't approve of his actions, but the lead of the article reads like an attack page.  It seems like you wish to highlight every bad thing he has done, much like he did in his videos.  Arzel (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have "numerous times" claimed that assertions of fact are merely "opinions". And you have been incorrect each of those numerous times.  Of course, if you simply don't like that a reputable physicist publishes in a reliable source the fact that "water is wet", you can certainly claim, "numerous times" even, that it is just his "opinion", but Wikipedia editors won't take you seriously. Assertions of fact made in sources that meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability do not transform into mere "opinion" just because you don't like those facts. When media analysts and investigative journalists publish in reliable sources their findings about O'Keefe's media projects, as they have done, we don't wave their conclusions off as simple opinion just because they don't mesh with your personal preconceptions.  Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As you continue to not understand, they are adjectives of opinion. "Heavily" has no defined value, there is no point at which someone could clearly state that something is either "Heavily" or some other adjective.  Your definition of heavily does not equal the defintion of anyone else.  Edited, however, is a true dicotomy.  Either something is or it is not edited.  Wet is another clear dicotomy, where as a "little" wet is adjective of opinion.  Verstehen?  Arzel (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because I don't address each variation of your morphing concerns in a single response, that doesn't mean that I "continue to not understand". I responded above to your assertion that the "Heavily" adverb was only factual when used by a particular District Attorney, and mere "opinion" when used by other reliable sources. Now I will address your conflicting assertion that, "Heavily" has no defined value, there is no point at which someone could clearly state that something is either "Heavily" or some other adjective." Adverb, and yes it does have a defined value: significantly more (verb) than the norm — and that isn't my definition.  I don't have a definition for it.  Now, to help you understand, let's use it in a sentence: Investigations by legal authorities and journalists have found O'Keefe has "selectively", "heavily" and "deceptively" edited videos to leave a false impression and present the subjects in the worst possible light.  Xenophrenic (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I commented last time on the problems I saw. The wording is a definite improvement but the sourcing could use some improvement. In particular, we currently use  but both seem to solely refer to the Californian ACORN investigation when it comes to the editing. Similarly both   seem to solely refer to the Brooklyn investigation of ACORN when it comes to the editing. Finally we have  which is a media investigation of the NPR one. Now I acknowledge we don't need sourcing in the lede if it's in the article so there may be some sourcing I missed. But I don't see much point for the duplicate sourcing (one on the California and Brooklyn is enough). And it would be ideal if we had something beyond ACORN and NPR (although unlike the earlier wording, the current wording doesn't really definitely say the videos affected were more then the NPR and ACORN so it isn't so critical). Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The AG office document cited as support for the assertion that O'Keefe entered Landrieu's office with the intent to tamper with the physical phone system says no such thing. It says that the arrest affidavit alleged this, not that this was the ultimate finding of the office. Even if this was the AG's final conclusion, and not merely an allegation in some affidavit, this would still not be justification for taking sides in the dispute. Someone who swore out an affidavit alleged this, O'Keefe disputes it. All of this is in fact mentioned in the cited source from the California AG, but for some reason only the initial allegation is mentioned in the lead. The relevant portion of the California AG document states:
 *  The arresting affidavit alleged that O’Keefe and three other men plotted to wiretap the phones of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu’s office in New Orleans, Louisiana. O’Keefe issued a statement claiming his intent was to investigate whether Senator Landrieu’s phones were broken. Senator Landrieu, a Democrat, supported the federal healthcare reform bill and opponents of the bill complained that their calls to her office were met with busy signals.  In an interview, the Senator had apologized and stated that the volume of calls had overloaded her staff and voice mail.  An attorney for one of the other men said the men did not intend to interfere with her phones, but rather intended to make a film embarrassing the Senator because of her support for the healthcare bill.  On March 28, 2010, the US Attorney announced reduced charges against the four men.
 * As I asserted when I initially listed the article here, there are many claims being inserted and reinserted into the article without basis in RS. Furthermore, even if such allegations appear in reliable source, this doesn't mean that Wikipedia should publish them as fact as if there was no live controversy. That is a violation of NPOV. DickClarkMises (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The AG office document cited as support for the assertion that O'Keefe entered Landrieu's office with the intent to tamper with the physical phone system says no such thing."
 * The assertion that the arresting affidavit alleges he did, you mean, and yeah, it does. In fact, it says, "The arresting affidavit alleged that O’Keefe and three other men plotted to wiretap the phones of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu’s office in New Orleans, Louisiana."  The other cited source further states, "Alleging a plot to tamper with phones in Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans, the FBI arrested four people Monday, including James O'Keefe..."
 * We shouldn't confuse confirmed fact with allegations, and we certainly shouldn't remove reliably sourced factual content (as was done earlier) under the pretense that we "shouldn't take sides in the dispute" — if you have reliably sourced content about a 'side of the dispute' you feel is lacking, please add it instead. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The other part of the quote from the CA AG report is interesting: "An attorney for one of the other men [O'Keefe's colleagues] said the men did not intend to interfere with her phones, but rather intended to make a film embarrassing the Senator because of her support for the healthcare bill." So they were not "seeking the truth", as O'Keefe had claimed in his statement, or, in addition, they were seeking to "embarrass her". That is the kind of context that can be and should be cited in such an article from an RS.Parkwells (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I added quotes from RS and, as Xenophrenic notes, used quotation marks around "selectively" and "deceptively" edited to show those words came from the RS; they are not scare quotes. I have a larger concern about this article, as a Wikipedia encyclopedia article, which I expressed in different ways on its Talk page, and to which no one has responded. Now that the initial flurry of the ACORN, PLanned Parenthood and NPR videos is over (although O'Keefe certainly continues to make videos and to be written about, as in a recent NY Times magazine article, I think the Wikipedia article should be edited to reflect what RS say about O'Keefe, the media frenzy and controversy, and the differences between the raw and edited videos in some sort of summary fashion, rather than using such extensive quotes from primary sources. Rather than relying on O'Keefe's quotes about what he was doing, and quotes from the videos, several of which have been shown to have been edited in a highly misleading manner, I think the article should be cooled down and made more objective by relying on what commentators published in RS have to say about them and his work - not just using quotes of his published in RS. Isn't that what we are supposed to be doing?  This is not supposed to be journalism. If the article is about O'Keefe, it should be using sources about him, the videos, and the media controversy - e.g., RS that describe his and Breitbauer's strategies and reactions of other media, not just repeatedly using their and FOX quotes attacking the mainstream media. To achieve an NPOV, I think the article needs more distance and context, with material from third parties, rather than more direct quotes from the primary players.Parkwells (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Another reason for my concern about the article is that the repetition of quotes directly from the videos, rather than from RS describing or characterizing the videos, continues the potential for damage to other named living persons, particularly the executives at NPR - Wikipedia policy says that editorial judgment is to be extended to other living persons mentioned in a BLP: "This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article..."Parkwells (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Simon Chesterman
I'm concerned about this comment left on the talk page there by an admin. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that the biography of Chesterman has been WP:COATRACKed by the same admin to the point where it includes more of the opinions of Nicholas J. Wheeler--a scholar that disagrees with Chesterman--than those of Chesterman himself. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Um -- zero reverts, and a total of one group of 32 edits by the one user you criticize ... and no edits by you.  One edit on the talk page. Again by the person you accuse of COATRACKing the article.   Article was AfD'd -- and the AfD was withdrawn because of the new edits. Sorry - fails to arouse sympathy here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, so is it fine to write half the bio of Barack Obama based on what John McCain said about him? Also, I see no policy saying that I should have to revert something before asking for other editors' opinion on it. I have noticed that statistically you seem to disagree with me on many BLP matters where we both comment (more so when you comment after me), so I'm surely not asking for your sympathy. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The first place to go is the article talk page. You didn't go there.  Nor did you edit the article. What you did was come here first.   Frankly, no one would agree that coming to a noticeboard first is a great idea.  And you should have posted on the admin's talk page as well.  And I rather agree or disagree based on what the topic is, not on whoever has posted.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * According to our guidelines, we strongly discourage WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and we note that "many autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community". This is merely one example out of many transformed autobiographies in Wikipedia. Simon Chesterman chose to heap flourishing praise on himself. All my edits were sourced by academic articles and peer-reviewed reputable secondary sources. Simon Chesterman chose to cite his own articles (as he does in academia -- 9 out of 15 citations for one of his books were ... by himself), which are self-published primary sources for the biography at hand and wrote selectively chose favourable reviews. Furthermore, many of the primary sources originally chosen for his version of the biography were books that did not undergo institutionalised peer review before publication. Couldn't you have informed me, FuFoFuEd? I will be glad to work out any disputes you have over the article. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 20:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The author added his books and his arguments himself &mdash; since we have no idea what a neutral contributor would have started with by themselves, or whether Simon Chesterman cherrypicked his reviews, I had to be vigilant about what others said about him, since he added very little secondary sources. Furthermore, Simon Chesterman appears to obscure much of his actual positions in his original autobiography -- he just says "Simon Chesterman is an expert on X, has received praise from Y", without discussing at all, the criticism and peer review his views have received. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 21:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * When there are a multiplicity of comments about someone's views, not just the person himself, but any editor, can select which ones to include. There is a considerable likelihood the person himself will quote selectively in a positive direction (tho some sophisticated controversialists make a point of citing negative criticism also, so nobody can come back at them with it.) But any editor here is likely to be equally selective. If we do not have a position when we start working on an article, we will when we finish. No one person can therefore say, he did it wrong, but I did it right. The easiest and safest way to express bias at Wikipedia is through selective quotation, as so few other editors, let alone readers, will actually follow it to the source.   The only way for assuring some degree of objectivity is editing from a number of people. We permit COI editing, though we discourage it. We permit it because it will be corrected by other editors.  We also permit it, because without it, we'd have much less content. Most peopler edit articles because they have a COI to one degree or another.
 * as for the comment about the author, I consider it unfair, and I suggest you withdraw it, and apologize. Everyone normally cites their own work to a certain extent, and it does not illustrate bad faith or ulterior motives in any special way. If a new editor had made such a comment, I'd warn them with a third or 4th level BLP warning; BLP applies to article talk pages.     DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Such self-aggrandising by the article creator out to game our system of sources should have zero tolerance on Wikipedia. I have no stance or POV on Simon Chesterman; my only grievance is that he dared create a self-aggrandising WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which is strongly discouraged. My comment about the author using self-citation is a fact, not an opinion, and I might point out, most other academics do not cite themselves that arrogantly. Self-citations should be ~30% of the total citations of a work to be tolerable -- anything else shows clear signs of abusing the system. May I note that self-citation in academia is a noted issue of concern. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 05:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Suicide of Tyler Clementi
Please see Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Another editor and I are stuck on deciding how BLP should be applied to living persons discussed on the page. Fresh eyes would be welcome. Please comment there, rather than here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (I am responding here because usually, a noticeboard is an opportunity for those of us who do not want to become involved in an article or topic to weigh in on the topic, which editing a talkpage with a substantial comment most definitely is - an important consideration in the WP:DR process - I hope you understand)


 * I took a look at whats going on, I think that this is not a BLP issue per se, but more like a WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE issue. The is nothing potentially libelous being said about any living person, and the subject of the article is very much dead, to state the obvious. You guys are discussing what to include about information that has emerged on the ongoing case surrounding your case. Take it to WP:NPOV/N, I might respond there.--Cerejota (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I do understand, and that's fine. I appreciate the information you provided here, and would continue to welcome anyone else who, if you should happen to be so inclined, would like to give advice of any sort at the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow-up question: what do other editors here think about the idea that the issues are not really about BLP, but instead BURDEN and UNDUE? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, the issue isn't whether info about Clementi are BLP issues, but whether discussing the relationship beween Clementi and his parents is a BLP issue for his parents, or whether the information presented in the article makes POV claims and inferences about Ravi which rise to the level of BLP issues.LedRush (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah but they are not BLP issues, because nothing inflammatory or libelous is being said about any living person.


 * Being concrete, the Tyler Clementi's other reasons to kill himself are central to Ravi's defense, and the claims are verifiable with sources as reliable as the NYT, a WP:BURDEN issue. However, as a theory of the defense, identified directly or implied as such by all sources, we should be careful with WP:UNDUE - what are the sources giving weight to? Remember: verifiability, not truth. Since the sources reporting on the defense's theory are also reporting on the original prosecution theory, it also becomes a WP:BURDEN issue - how relevant is this theory to the case as per sources? Is this just an idea being floated around by the defense or are RS picking it up as a valid thing? I looked at the info, and since I wish to remain uninvolved on the actual debate leave those questions open, but an examination of the sources doesn't reveal, to me, any BLP issues: the opinion of the mother might or might not be included as per WP:UNDUE/WP:BURDEN but if they are included, there is no BLP issues unless she disavows them. Ravi is accused of a crime, and the information of the defense and prosecution is a matter of public record that again is subject to WP:UNDUE/WP:BURDEN, but what is acceptable to a court of law shouldn't be unacceptable to us, again not a BLP issue.


 * I say that you should both refocus the debate to those categories, and forget about BLP a little, and in fact understand that BLP protection is intended for libelous slander, one-sided criticism, personal information and other such irrelevant and inflammatory information. It doesn't cover uncomfortable, embarrassing, even criminal behavior of a subject if this information is widely verified in reliable sources and is doesn't cover information a subject will not like or that a wikipedia editor believes that the subject will not like. We need to be kind to living people, but kindness needs to be tempered with whatever the RS are saying in a non-sensational or yellowish fashion.--Cerejota (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you've read the sources or not, but the prosecution has not alleged that the suicide is connected to the spying incident (hence at least part of the BLP issue I see with making the connection without including any other information at all). It is unclear whether the defense will use the information regarding Clementi's relationships with his family, but literally hundreds of newspapers have.
 * My argument is exactly that one-sided criticism of Ravi is the BLP issue, as you've laid out above. The early reporting on this issues was indeed sensational and yellow, as the NYTimes article implies to me.LedRush (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not being clear. You argument that it is "sensational and yellow" doesn't, in my view, amount to the bright-line issues of the BLP policy, neither does the view that information prejudicial to Ravi's defense constitutes "one sided criticism" - that is, while possibly embarrassing or damaging, they are presented in reliable sources that do thorough fact-checking and who are reporting not with the intent of prejudicial sensationalism, but keeping interested readers inform. BLP is not, as you seem to interpret it, permission to summarily remove any information harmful to a subject, it is actually a bright line on defending WP:NPOV: it is about concentrating on what made a living person notable in the first place, and Ravi has a huge role in this notable suicide, so naturally any information on him as it relates to this case as noted in verifiable reliable sources is important to the topic. Information on Ravi (or any other living person involved in this case not notable for anything else) that is not central to his involment with the case is what BLP protect. For example, information on his personal life, information on his upbringing, etc etc etc.


 * A hypothetical BLP violation would be saying "Ravi is a cold-hearted homophobic murderer", but saying "Ravi has been charged with being a homophobe and a murderer by the Republic of Albonia's Police" is not a BLP violation. Likewise, a violation would be "Tyler Clementi's mom drove him to suicide" but "Tyler Clementi's mom didn't approve of his homosexuality" is not a violation of BLP if widely sourced, as it is. Another violation would be giving out detail on Tyler Clementi's mom not related to Tyler Clementi himself or his suicide - she is not notable except for the tragedy of her son killing himself, and we should be careful not to needlessly add to her pain by moving away from the topic and into her life. I see none of these happening here.


 * If you need a bright line, there are no claims that fall under BLP here - and I say so as an uninterested party who wants to remain uninterested. You do mention a key aspect here, which is that what the sources say to you and what they say to others is in dispute - those are precisely WP:UNDUE/WP:BURDEN issues for which I raised some guide questions towards resolution. Again, try WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN, because they breathe this stuff there. Sorry, but I get the distinct feeling that there is a fishing for support or opposition of the information under BLP, but this doesn't meet that threshold. It might meet other thresholds, and I point you out to them. But yes, I have read the wall-o-text and I see no major BLP issues that warrant the exclusion of material under BLP policy. --Cerejota (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I know you say you are reading the information, but it is hard for me to believe you as you keep misstating my positions. I never said "that information prejudicial to Ravi's defense constitutes "one sided criticism"".  The issue is that including only one side of information from reliable sources commenting on the issues is a BLP issue.  Furthermore, skewing such information further by the manner of presentation or by the misrepresentation of the sources themselves compounds the BLP issue.  This is a completely non-controversial opinion and I am surprised that you are spending so much time to argue against it.  I mean, you could try and argue that the info isn't one sided and the sources not misrepresented and the presentation not skewed, but not that those things don't creat BLP issues.LedRush (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't apply to BLP. It is a WP:UNDUE issue. Please read WP:UNDUE and compare it to what you wrote above, and change BLP to "UNDUE" and you will see what I mean, in particular this line "The issue is that including only one side of information from reliable sources commenting on the issues is a BLP issue" - no it isnt a BLP issue, it is an UNDUE issue. My estimation was based on this you wrote: "my argument is exactly that one-sided criticism of Ravi is the BLP issue". I don't see how that can be interpreted differently than how I did. --Cerejota (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "BLP protection is intended for libelous slander, one-sided criticism, personal information and other such irrelevant and inflammatory information." If only we could find who wrote this and ask him what he meant.LedRush (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "I should have said "unsourced", I brainfarted. :)--Cerejota (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, poorly sourced info is just as bad. Further, read part of the lede BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: 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, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."  This speaks directly to the issues we are discussing.
 * Also, the label issue is another, crystal clear BLP issue. Labeling Ravi has being the direct cause of the suicide, despite the fact that the claim doesn't appear to be in the article and it doesn't seem to be sourced to high quality sources (and it sure as heck isn't a "conservative" writing of the article is against BLP.  Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates  LedRush (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear, even if I feel I am repeating myself: in my assessment, if any of the sources in dispute are put in the article, there wouldn't be a BLP violation. Period. However, the issue if these sources should be included or not included is a legitimate debate centered around WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE issues. My suggestion is that you desist from pursuing it as a BLP matter, and concentrate in the potential WP:BURDEN/WP:UNDUE issues. You can disregard this suggestion, but I do ask you consider if this is productive or not.
 * I'll let others reply if they want to, because if I fail in this last attempt, I have been unsuccessful in conveying to you that I am giving you a good-faith assessment that the dispute is one about WP:BURDEN/WP:UNDUE (and hence should be resolved by addressing such issues), not about WP:BLP. You can disregard my assessment, or accept it, but that is my assessment, based on careful reading of policy, previous experience, and examining the dispute and sources involved - not ignorance of the issues at hand, or a lack of conservatism in handling BLPs (you can search other positions of mine in this very page and you will see I am quite conservative when it comes to BLP, because BLP makes sense. --Cerejota (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Unfortunately, declaratory statements on policy are not really helpful, but I do thank you for weighing in. Could you please provide your reasoning as to why the BLP policy on labeling I link to above does not apply to tagging the article as a "suicide due to cyberbullying" when the article doesn't include that argument, no one has provided RSs to back up the claim, and the NYTimes explicitly refutes this position?LedRush (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP noticeboard, so I refrain from making assesments of anything of substance not related to BLP (and referred this discussion to other, more appropriate, noticeboards). Since you are questioning my assessment of this not being a BLP issue, all I have left is policy based arguments. To directly answer your question: I have no opinion for inclusion or inclusion of the information, but while I cannot see this as a BLP issue (the case is widely report together with the topic of cyberbullying, and it is trivial to find RS that do so, ex.) I can see your argument on inclusion as related to WP:BURDEN, which puts the burden on the people who include or revert information, but also calls upon editors to make an effort to look for sourcing, rather than simply removal. Since this is not a BLP issue, there is no reason to immediately remove the information or to keep it, all you have left is the WP:BRD process (being careful not to edit war), and in order to facilitate the reaching that consensus I pointed out that both WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE seem to apply, and pointed you out to the appropriate noticeboard. You insist, as is your right, that this is a BLP issue, instead of going to those noticeboards and asking for views on WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE.--Cerejota (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will take you at your word that you are making good faith positions, but when you don't articulate why you think an issue which appears to directly fall under BLP policy doesn't, it is difficult to discuss anything. Seeing as no one has put forward a RS which says Clementi's suicide was a result of cyber-bullying (including the one you link to, which has many of the inaccuracies of other early reports) and I have highly reliable sources which explicitly says that the issue is unclear, this doesn't pass even normal WP rules as it appears to be OR.  But let's pretend that these sources do exist.  It still falls under the BLP policy regarding categories/labels I linked to above.  Maybe you don't think it's a violation, but the issue clearly must be analyzed with this in mind.LedRush (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have explained it, at some length I might add. I apologize it is not to your satisfaction, but I cannot see how I can be more clear.--Cerejota (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alas, not once have you addressed why the tag "suicides due to cyber-bullying" tag wouldn't need to abide by the guidelines set out in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates . Furthermore, your example above doesn't support the claim, and in my quick search online, none of the first 10 arrticles supports the claim, though a few either directly or indirectly argue against it.  But again, even if you disagree with the argument that the tag is a violation of BLP, you haven't offered any reason (nonetheless a clear one) why the tags wouldn't need to follow the referenced guidelines.LedRush (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read and carefully consider that is said here: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I think it applies in this case, without prejudice to the actual content dispute.--Cerejota (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please either make an actual argument which addresses mine (not a conclusory opinion) or just let it go. Tryptofish has been able to do this, even though we disagree.  You, on the other hand...LedRush (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cerejota, thank you for your input here. I am, indeed, hopeful that LedRush and I are making progress (and I actually think that this discussion here was helpful in getting us there). I hope that you understand that your comments are appreciated. And anyone else who wants to provide any advice would be very welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ernesto Bustamante
On 8/23/11, in Moscow, Idaho, USA, an apparent murder/suicide took place involving another man by the same name as this article. The story is getting U.S. and international coverage. This story may continue to gain coverage, and searches on this name may increase. The person in Moscow (The alleged perpetrator, now dead) probably does not warrant an article of his own, so there is no disambiguation possible in the usual sense. Would it be appropriate to add a brief clarification to the article to say, in effect, "This is not the person involved in that incident"? Josepheh (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea to me. I wonder if maybe we should provide a link to a source on the 'other' Bustamante, though, to make it clear that they aren't the same person? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Great. Let's take conversation to talk page of the article. Josepheh (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably best to see if anyone else has comments on this - similar situations may have arisen before. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Very good. I will wait a while and watch for further comments here or at article before proceeding. Josepheh (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the generic hatnote template (Template:Dablink) is probably what is needed if we do this. We can at least think about wording - how about "Note: this article is about a Peruvian scientist, and not about another person of the same name involved in an alleged murder-suicide in Idaho in August 2011." We can give a link to the Huffington Post for example to make clear that they aren't the same person . AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree w/Andy.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * O.k. I'll add it for now - if it is wrong, it can always be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done this. Strictly speaking, it might be seen as WP:OR to assert that they aren't the same person, but I think we are on safe grounds... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one promise not to report you for an OR violation here ...--Epeefleche (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll get over to his talkpage with a level 4 warning template right away :) In the meantime, I've tweaked the wording a little (there's potential for more confusion by passers-by, since they were both scientists and quite possibly both Peruvian too) and also changed the inline external link into a footnote reference. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Muslim converts involved in terrorism
A few days back, created. Since it included some inappropriate content (names of people falsely accused of links to militant Islamic terror plots), tagged it and I deleted it as an attack page. Fadywalker asked me on my talk page about it, and I made some efforts to explain to him the BLP policy and why the article was inappropriate.

Now, he is asking me to mentor him through the process of re-creating the article. He seems eager to contribute and write it, but I don't think I'm the best person to help him. I directed him here but he is clearly new to Wikipedia and doesn't know how to post on noticeboards. Can someone please help point him in the right direction? Thanks, causa sui (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt such an article will ever be suitable for mainspace, so I'm not sure where to direct this user. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Terrorism? I am putting on user talk. --Cerejota (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Horowitz
The last paragraph of this article is an unwarranted personal attack launched by people who happen to disagree with Horowitz on an issue of legitimate public policy disagreement. The allegations by the murderer's attorneys have minimal credibility, given that their client's guilt was proved by DNA, as noted in the main Scott Dyleski article. These allegations should simply be deleted.

The statement that Horowitz's position is "directly contrary" to "human rights" organizations such as Human Rights Watch is a biased way of stating it. Anyone can call themselves a "human rights" organization and then proceed to denounce as a "human rights" violation any policy they disagree with, and that is exactly what HRW does. If this sentence is not deleted altogether, it should be rephrased in a more even-handed tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksscheidegger (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Pretty much a poor article at best. The "Wikipedia voice" should not be used to make accusations in the first place, and there is really weird copyediting present throughout the article.   Please someone - take this bull ... by the horns. Collect (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the paragraph in question as synthesis, a violation of WP:NPOV etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Jim Carrey
More eyes on the article would be appreciated, apparently he released a youtube video professing his love for Emma Stone, and there has been some back an forth on the page about the suitability of the source and whether this type of information is appropriate for his page. Rather than edit war over this, I'd like to get some fresh eyes. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As Carrey himself said at his Twitter, it's part of a comedy routine. Definitely do not go under "family and relationships". Nymf hideliho! 21:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Tanya Beyer
Another problematic Playboy model article. Are the drug charges worthy of inclusion in this article? At best sourced from local news as far as I can tell. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Has she given any interviews addressing the matter? Is she still professionally involved? If she isn't then this is clearly not notable and should be removed. We are not a gossip rag to pursue people the community has chosen as notable (I don't think she is notable but it seems it is impossible to delete Playboy centerfolds, sorry, Playmate of the Month for fanboys). If she is no longer in a notable profession and is retired from the business that gave her notability, there is no reason to examine her life with a microscope. I suggest rev-delete. --Cerejota (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * She was a playmate 20 years ago. The arrest however is from only a couple of years ago. She looks way old in her mugshot to land any X-rated jobs. I'm not aware of any recent interviews with her. Also, her sentencing to time served is only sourced from the court page; no secondary coverage for that, only for the arrest there's some. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a matter of mere drug charges. If it were, I'd say leave it out.  But according to the article she was a fugitive for six months and the police launched a publicity campaign to apprehend her.  I'd say that's fairly notable. Gamaliel (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that aspect is being grossly exaggerated in Wikipedia compared to reliable sources, which emphasize something else, and it's more likely why they found the arrest (but not the sentencing or release) newsworthy:.
 * "Beyer is charged with what is commonly known as "doctor-shopping" — seeking prescriptions, especially painkillers and anxiety medications, from multiple doctors. A Palm Beach County Sheriff's deputy investigated her for allegedly seeking the scripts from three local doctors. [...] Beyer had been sought by police since October on the felony charges and surrendered at the Palm Beach County jail late last month [March]. "A Formerly Wanted Woman" trumpeted the website, smokinggun.com. Soon, of course, the blogs picked it up, and people in pajamas weighed in with their comments. [...] Beyer's case actually centers on a very hot-button legal topic these days: the methods police use to gain access to a patient's medical and pharmacy records."


 * The Palm Beach Post appears slightly less sensationalist than The Smoking Gun. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should remove that bit about Crimestoppers since it is sourced to a broken link and definitely leaves the wrong impression. Gamaliel (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel: This isn't a matter of mere drug charges. If it were, I'd say leave it out.  But according to the article she was a fugitive for six months and the police launched a publicity campaign to apprehend her.  I'd say that's fairly notable. After the apprehension the legal system was so outraged that it put her in the slammer for, uh, what turned out to be less than three months. Isn't this remarkably little by US standards? (Though yes, I realize that she was pushing a drug linked with white people, of whom she is one.) &para; Cerejota: I don't think she is notable but it seems it is impossible to delete Playboy centerfolds, sorry, Playmate of the Month for fanboys. I too had thought until recently that playmates were (bizarrely) regarded as article-worthy ex officio. However, I was wrong. Considering that the criminal behavior (amassing and selling hillbilly heroin) is very humdrum, that the press coverage is minimal, and that she's now a private person, I say WP should treat her in the same way as another playmate recently discussed, rewriting the article as


 *  #REDIRECT List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1992


 * -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully support his. GOing for WP:BOLD!!!...--Cerejota (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Also, pill pushing nearly 20 years about her playboy days is most definitely not notable. --Cerejota (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see some sanity, basically BLP2E. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Arturas Rosenbacher
This new article purports to be about the new Executive Director and Chairman of the Board for WikiLeaks, based on entirely unverifiable sources. It has been created by User:Rosenbaa, and as such is either autobiographical, or the user is falsely representing himself as the subject. I'm unsure of how best to proceed: It may be factual, but it could also be entirely bogus. Any advice? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: another editor has raised an AfD - Articles_for_deletion/Arturas_Rosenbacher. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a hoax and should have been a speedy delete.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - I've come to the same conclusion. Why would Wikileaks appoint a 19-year-old as chairman? If it is a hoax, it is quite possibly a BLP violation too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

- perhaps a passing administrator will speedy it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've requested speedy deletion: "Pages currently on proposed deletion or deletion discussion (see below) may be deleted through speedy deletion." See WP:DEL.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete was accepted. I assume someone will close the deletion discussion (can a non-admin do that?).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - by User:Metropolitan90 - Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Political speculation
When is it correct to speculate about the possible activities of politicians? For example, United States presidential election, 2012 is all about speculation.  Will Beback   talk    04:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it depends on the quality of the cited sources, and if reliable reports say that someone is seriously considering a run, then so be it. It is the reliable sources that are "speculating", (usually based on off-the-record conversations), not us.  I heard John Bolton interviewed by Ronn Owens on KGO (AM) in San Francisco yesterday, and he acknowledged that he was giving serious consideration to running for president.  He said that he would make an announcement somewhere around Labor Day.  He's among those mentioned in this article.  If solid reliable sources confirm that such candidacies are under consideration, then I see no reason not to mention it here.  If someone officially withdraws, we can then update the article.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen C. Meyer


I have noticed numerous problems at the Stephen C. Meyer BLP, but I am running into a mixture of indifference, opposition, and even hostility on the article's Talk page to the idea of addressing these problems from the other editors currently active there. One of the other editors there did agree that there was a problem with some of the sources, but took no action, and another of the editors fixed a small portion of these problems. As I am outnumbered two to one, I don't want to unilaterly make the changes. The primary problem is the frequent use of poor sourcing for a BLP, especially given that according to BLP policy language we are supposed to insist on high-quality sources for these articles.

There is the use of self-published sources that should not be used at all in a BLP, the questionable use of advocacy group sources, the use of opinion sources that should only be used to source opinions and not facts in a BLP, and sources that are ostensibly used to support facts when they don't actually do so. Other individual sourcing problems include the use of simple statements and press releases by scientific organizations, the use of analysis of a state legislative bill by state legislative staffers, a convenience link to an unauthorized and inauthenticated confidential document on a non-reliable source website, and an external link to an advocacy wiki. Two sources are represented as being sourced to one source, while actually sourced to a different source (both with the result of casting a more negative light on the BLP subject). Finally, extended excerpts from sources in footnotes are only used with sources that are critical of the BLP subject.

Please see the full discussion of sourcing problems at Talk:Stephen C. Meyer. Drrll (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of people at this noticeboard, could you describe what you believe to be the one or two most egregious sourcing/BLP issues? And then we can go from there. MastCell Talk 03:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The most egregious example is the inclusion and linking to 3 separate sources (2 of them highly critical of him) to ostensibly support where Meyers previously taught as a college professor. None of them actually discuss at all where he taught. One of them is published by the advocacy group Center for Inquiry, an affiliate of such groups as the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society (ISIS) and the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH) and which runs the "Naturalism Research Project" to promote philosophical naturalism. Another source is an opinion piece titled "Survival of the Slickest", printed in the opinion magazine The American Prospect, published by the very politically ideological advocacy group Center for American Progress. Besides linking to this source, the footnote hosts a long excerpt from the piece which makes a number of factual assertions for a BLP, even though it is an opinion piece, not a news piece.


 * Another example is the anauthorized linking to an inauthenticated confidential primary document on the non-reliable source advocacy website antievolution.org. It is included purportedly to state as fact that the BLP subject co-wrote the document. The actual linked document makes makes no such assertion. Also, the reference is construed to make it appear that it is hosted by the organization that originated the document.


 * The last example is an extenal link to the relatively unknown advocacy wiki Evowiki (I searched for it on WP and found no article on it, but did find that it's also being used in the Kurt Wise BLP in 'External links').


 * There are plenty of other sourcing problems there with sources that don't belong in a BLP at all, or which use acceptable or questionable BLP sources in a dubious manner to support a factual assertion in the BLP. Again, see Talk:Stephen C. Meyer. Drrll (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Drrll left an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink complaints list on Talk:Stephen C. Meyer. I'm afraid I WP:TLDNRed it, and sent him here. I would suggest that the 'profundity' of the issues that he has highlighted as "egregious" rather justified my inattention. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Most probably the Whitworth sentence was added after the citations, as happens not infrequently on Wikipedia. So it is just a case of moving the citation and finding a source for Whitworth. I would further point out that the piece that Drrll is howling about was written by a prominent academic, who was accepted by the Federal courts as an expert on the history of intelligent design. So clearly a WP:RS.
 * 2) The "anauthorized [sic] linking to an inauthenticated confidential primary document" is in fact the 'Wedge document' -- which has been widely circulated and was (eventually) accepted by Meyer's DI as authentic. Though I'm not entirely sure why it is cited, as the text itself does not verify that Meyer is a co-author.
 * 3) Given the Evowiki link is broken, it should probably be removed -- but hardly seems a BLP issue.

Almost immediately after this notice was placed on BLPN (even though the same problem was mentioned earlier at the BLP's Talk page), Hrafn (one of the primary editors of the BLP) simply shuffled the 3 references that were being improperly used in the lead for sourcing a fact to a different location in the lead. The sentence he shifted it to is "He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the driving force behind the intelligent design movement." While the first reference cited (a polemic written by a professor of general philosophy and published by an advocacy group--available here) does largely support the "driving force" claim, the second source does not. And the third source is not useable at all, as it is an opinion piece printed in an opinion magazine to support factual claims in a BLP. None of the 3 sources support the first factual claim--that Meyer helped found the CSC. Neither does the BLP article body support that factual claim.

That the "Wedge" document has been widely circulated hardly mitigates the facts that a BLP links to an unauthorized inauthenticated document on a non-reliable advocacy website, likely resulting in WP:COPYVIO issues. If Hrafn can demonstrate with a reliable source that the Discovery Institute has accepted as authentic the particular file linked to in Meyer's BLP, then he needs to provide that reliable source. Even though he admits that "the text itself does not verify that Meyer is a co- author"--the claim in Meyer's BLP that the reference ostensibly supports--regular Meyer BLP editor Hrafn didn't bother removing the reference from the BLP.

I found some additional BLP concerns:
 * A primary source (a transcript of a television debate between Meyer & Eugenie Scott) is interpreted to represent Meyer's views.


 * A sentence represents that an organization (the Council of the Biological Society of Washington) refutes the claims of another BLP subject, Richard Sternberg, when in actuality it is merely WP editors refuting the claims by linking twice to the non-reliable website http://www.iscid.org.


 * To refute that "Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views", the BLP devotes 10 times as much space to refuting the claim as was devoted to stating Meyer's view.


 * Likewise, the article devotes about 3.5 times as much space for negative critiques of one of his books than it devotes to positive critiques of the book. That, despite the fact that a positive review referenced appeared in The Times of London, while the three negative reviews referenced appeared in letters to the editor in The Times and at a website that officially advocates against intelligent design. Drrll (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There may be some sourcing problems, but the idea that we have to claw back the use of critical sources of Meyer's views strikes me as a serious case of WP:CRYBLP. Take one example: the Nagel review of Signature and the Cell. The article may seem to give undue weight to the responses to Nagel's review. But Nagel's review was met with extraordinary amounts of scorn and not just from 'activist' people - from lots of Nagel's fellow philosophers. Yes, yes, feel free to dismiss them all as evil liberal elitists who are part of the Darwinian-naturalist-babyeating conspiracy theory. But there was considerable reaction and it's not a BLP violation to discuss the critical reaction to Meyer's book: if it weren't a BLP but an article on the book itself, we'd usually be applauding how much coverage is paid to the book because it goes to establish that there's notability! If we start alleging that he's a paedophile or that he shot Bobby Kennedy, then we can start crying "BLP!" but this reaction is rather ovewrought. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As you say, there are sourcing problems, including ones that impinge upon BLP policy ("Be very firm about the use of high quality sources").


 * "the idea that we have to claw back the use of critical sources of Meyer's views strikes me as a serious case of WP:CRYBLP": The following BLP policy applies to the inclusion and/or particular use of several of the critical sources used in Myer's BLP, as laid out above and at Talk:Stephen C. Meyer:


 * Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.


 * Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints


 * ''Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person...that is a conjectural interpretation of a source"


 * ''Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person...that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP"


 * Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person...that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.


 * If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.


 * "...the Nagel review of Signature and the Cell. The article may seem to give undue weight to the responses to Nagel's review. But Nagel's review was met with extraordinary amounts of scorn and not just from 'activist' people - from lots of Nagel's fellow philosophers. ["Yes, yes, feel free to dismiss them all as evil liberal elitists who are part of the Darwinian-naturalist-babyeating conspiracy theory" (not responding to straw man argument)]. But there was considerable reaction and it's not a BLP violation to discuss the critical reaction to Meyer's book.": that "Nagel's review was met with extraordinary amounts of scorn...from lots of Nagel's fellow philosophers" may or may not be true. If you want to state something like that you need a high-quality reliable source that states that. Or there can be several individual negative reviews in reliable sources quoted along with positive reviews. Drrll (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What a load of WP:Complete bollocks, as well as ludicrous WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, Drrll. As to your new, and very vague, accusations -- I would suggest that you have presented no evidence that the article misrepresents the WP:WEIGHT of expert opinion on either Meyer's book or his accusations of 'persecution'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I explained my reasoning for the citation move above.
 * 2) Your dismissive and unbalanced description of Dr Forrest fails to address the fact that she was accepted by a US Federal court as an expert on the history of ID. That she gives creationists such as yourself howling conniptions does not change this fact.
 * 3) The Wedge document has been (belated) acknowledged by the DI, and has been in the public arena for over a decade -- so your "inauthenticated" is utterly fallacious and your "unauthorized" utterly irrelevant.

Sorry, but I got wrong the ratio of the material presented to refute one of Meyer's views to the material presented to represent Myer's view. It's actually 14 times as much material, not just 10 times. I failed to take into account the excerpt quoted in one of the footnotes.

"I explained my reasoning for the citation move above": you said "it is just a case of moving the citation and finding a source for Whitworth." Well you moved 'three citations, one of which did not support the claim of the sentence where you moved the references to, and another of which is unusable to support claims of fact as it is an opinion piece. And you didn't follow through with "finding a source for Whitworth."

"Your dismissive and unbalanced description of Dr Forrest fails to address the fact that she was accepted by a US Federal court as an expert on the history of ID. That she gives creationists such as yourself howling conniptions does not change this fact": unlike an actual historian of science like Ronald L. Numbers, Forrest's academic training is in general philosophy and she does not teach History of Science or even Philosophy of Science, instead teaching undergraduate courses in general philosophy. Since when did testifying in one court case make one "an expert on the history of ID" either in academia or in Wikipedia? That she writes polemics on ID does not make her "an expert on the history of ID" either.

"your "inauthenticated" is utterly fallacious": like I said earlier, show us a reliable source that says that the DI has authenticated the particular document linked to in the BLP.

"I would suggest that you have presented no evidence that the article misrepresents the WP:WEIGHT of expert opinion on either Meyer's book or his accusations of 'persecution': sorry, but in WP, the burden of evidence, especially for a BLP, is on the one supporting the current status quo--you, not me. And you have not presented evidence that representative weight has been followed (just a collection of individual references does not do so).

My very first time running across long-time editor Hrafn was the occasion of him wholesale reverting five of my edits to the Meyer BLP, where he sits as a primary editor, with his edit summary only mentioning the first edit he reverted (see here). It wasn't long after that that he started resorting to personal attacks. Here he calls me "willfully ignorant." Later on, he calls me a "fanatic" here, and in the same edit also makes what appears to a mocking comment about what he perceives to be my religion ("kindly stop nailing yourself to that cross -- you make a very poor martyr"). Those are the personal attacks I happen to remember. Now, he continues his tradition of personal attacks by using the scare-epithet "creationist" (see here for the essay "Creating Creationism" by leading historian on creationism Ronald Numbers, where he refers to "creationist" as an epithet: "Since at least the early 1840s Darwin had occasionally referred to "creationists" in his unpublished writings, but the epithet remained relatively uncommon." Even if he happened to know my personal views on creationism--which he doesn't--and my views were supportive of it, he would find himself in trouble with the very first item in WP:NPA policy that is considered to be a personal attack:
 * Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse

He neither knows my views on creationsim, nor has any evidence of my views on it (remember, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). Actually, this is at least the second time he has called me a "creationist," but like previous personal attacks, I didn't care. Now is different as he has made a personal attack in a heavily-read venue which attracts a lot of both admins and non-admin editors. A complaint is on the way to WP:WQA. Drrll (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I ask that MastCell, who weighed in earlier here asking for some specifics, or another admin review the above discussion and provide your view about whether there are BLP violations. Thanks. Drrll (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Feloni
I am about to log off but would appreciate more eyes on this article. It has been heavily edited by a single purpose account, and the editor has many problems understanding how to write and how to use Wikipedia. I just started cleaning up the article today, and it needs a lot more work. The last thing to happen is the editor is removing reference maintenance templates without justification. I just finished posting a level 4 warning on his Talk page, but I can't stick around today to see what he does next.

For a good example of how awful parts of the article are, just read the Early life section, which is "supported" by a dead link.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Eric D Angell
Egregious BLP and BLP1E violation. My speedy deletion tag was removed. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've recommended deletion at Articles for deletion/Eric D Angell. Would an administrator please take a look to see if speedy action is called for?  Thanks to The Mark of the Beast for bringing this forward.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at it, I was sure that it should be speedied, but I was too busy and didn't speedy it. I returned later, was surprised that nobody else had speedied it, and speedied it myself. (Any admin who disagrees with me -- really? -- is free to resuscitate it and let the AfD run its normal course; don't bother to ask me, because I hope to be away from the internets.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppressed the article since the article was full of claims attributed to blogs, and I don't consider the wording of the single source that comes close to being reliable as strong enough to stand alone for this serious allegation. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Stefano Pelinga
This is Stefano Pelinga writing. I was informed, and I later verified, that the picture of me posted on the Wikipedia article "Stefano Pelinga" has been removed due to a possible copyright infringement. I can hereby state and confirm that the picture file (Stefano Pelinga jpg.) is not copyrighted and the fact that that same picture has been published in the past on other media does not mean that it can't be used again and even less that those publications own any right on it. So I therefore ask to have that file undeleted and re-posted on my bio article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean Paul (talk • contribs) 17:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone owns the copyright to the picture. Who took it? In any event, I don't think your request belongs here - perhaps someone else can direct you to a better place to make it. As for the Pelinga article, it's a mess, and I've pared it back to a stub. It needs reliable sources, not to mention better writing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the article for deletion. It's borderline.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Matisyohu Salomon
One source is no longer valid the other is just a simple non-reliable blog. CapMan07008 (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice you've prodded the article. I've removed the blog as an unreliable source and not supporting the assertion in any event. I've put a dead link tag on the other cite.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ricardo Duchesne
I am concerned about a possible breach of WP:COI on Ricardo Duchesne. User:Gun Powder Ma has included information about the subject that does not appear to be publicly available. This includes I have asked User:Gun Powder Ma to state where s/he obtained this information. This request, however, was ignored. Given that the second and third items were included to build the subject's notability, I am concerned that User:Gun Powder Ma may have a connection to the subject or perhaps be the subject himself.--BlueonGray (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) the subject's place of birth
 * 2) the year in which the subject was promoted to full professor
 * 3) the subject's membership on the doctoral selection committee for The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
 * Wrong notice board, take it to WP:COIN, which is the COI noticeboard. However, such private information can only be included if well sourced and publicly available in verifiable reliable sources, so feel free to remove it as a clear violation of BLP policies.--Cerejota (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam Levine
We still have an editor (AndyTheGrump) not following sources. The relevant source material reads:

"Like a lot of Jewish musicians, Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life. It was inevitable, really: in a way, the Bible and its characters were supplanted at a young age in his imagination by the heroes of pop."

Based on the above the editor makes this edit and does it again here.

The insistence is on that Levine has "rejected formal religion" when the source says he "rejected formal religious practice".

What is "formal religion"? Why is the word "formal" even included? More importantly the source literally refers to "religious practice", not to "religion". The source is saying that there is no "religious practice"; the source is not saying that there is "no religion".

The sources that we have (1, 2, 3, 4) convey to us clearly and unambiguously that Adam Levine considers himself Jewish. The sources also convey that others consider him Jewish. No source whatsoever hints that he might not be Jewish.

Has he really "rejected formal religion"? Or is he "not religious" as my edit here phrased it?

Are we not trying to speak common English? The source says that Levine "rejected formal religious practice" and from that we are going to derive that he has "rejected formal religion"? Does anyone have even the remotest idea what the term "formal religion" refers to, especially in terms of Jews? Such language is never encountered. In common parlance a Jew who does not "practice" the religion—meaning engaging in ritual of one sort or another—is said to be "not religious". That is what I edited the sentence to read: "Levine is Jewish though not religious." That is standard, common, everyday English.

AndyTheGrump feels that the sentence should read: "Levine is Jewish but has rejected formal religion."

I am tired of arguing about this. I know this topic has just been archived off of this Noticeboard after spending two weeks here. We have used the article Talk page extensively. It is relatively unimportant that Levine's Jewishness be noted in that article.

But what I am encountering is the choice between accepting phrasing that has some unacceptable drawback or not noting Jewishness in the article at all. These are unreasonable choices, given the plain meaning of sources as well as the unimportance of some points that have been suggested for inclusion. For instance previously the argument was to include that he (Levine) did not have a Bar mitzvah. Including that would be ludicrous. And it is the same thing now. Now I am expected to accept that the subject of the article rejected formal religion when the source says that he rejected formal religious practice.

The above language is odd at best, meaningless at worst. All that I see is that the word "formal" has been retained intact from the source. Whereas the source says that Levine rejected formal religious practice, the article inexplicably now reads that Levine rejected formal religion. Can somebody else please weigh in here? Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As a solution - we don't seem to clearly know that he is not religious - do we? - just forget about his religion it doesn't seem important to him - just add - Levine is Jewish.  - his Jewishness does seem important to him and he refers to himself as Jewish often. Off2riorob (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, your argument makes no sense. How can the source possibly be used to state that Levine is 'not religious'? Atheists are 'not religious', but I'm sure that isn't what you mean. Levine rejected a Bar Mitzvah, and states (in the interview in the source cited) that "Religion is a very long, complicated conversation that we're not going to have right now..." The source cited says that "Like a lot of Jewish musicians, Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life" - one assumes this follows from what Levine said during the interview, though they aren't Levine's words. The simple fact is that we don't know what Levine's beliefs are, and we cannot use the source cited to state anything beyond that (we certainly can't state that religion isn't important to him, either). If you want to quote the Jewish Chronicle article directly, as saying that Levine has "rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life" I suppose that this might be acceptable - though how this differs from saying that he has 'rejected formal religion' is really beyond me, if you are instead using it to argue that Levine has no religion. Frankly though, I've given up trying to figure out what you are trying to argue. And no, the article isn't going to state that Levine is Jewish, without making clear that he isn't formally of the Judaic faith. We have the best possible source for this - Levine himself - and if we consider his ethnicity significant (which is self-asserted), we should likewise allow to assert his own faith. To do otherwise shows a complete disrespect for Levine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WTH? I would suggest that there is a reasonable equivalence between rejection of "formal religion" amd "formal religious practice." E.g.: a person might be nominally Roman Catholic, but not attend Mass weekly by a mile. Rejecting a Bar Mitsvah because of a feeling that the others had one out of greed is, in fact, a prescient and religious position on his part. IIRC, it is the age of 13, and not the ritual, which makes the boy a man. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason why the article should not simply state:


 * "Levine is Jewish."


 * I don't think anything further is called for. I do not think there is any further call for any further depth to that point. Nothing of any further interest exists pertaining to that point in relation to Adam Levine. Why would we be searching for anything further to say when nothing further apparently exists in sources? I would just have the article say "Levine is Jewish" and leave it at that. His identity is, after all, that of a "singer-songwriter and musician". Why should we feel the need to embellish the fact that he is Jewish?


 * I had written into the article, "Levine is Jewish though not religious" to accommodate other editors. But in the ideal I don't think the added wording is called for and I certainly don't think "…has rejected formal religion" has any place in a well-written and appropriately-sourced article on Adam Levine. Bus stop (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The cite does not back "not religious". In fact, as I noted, "rejection" of a ritual specifically may be quite religious. Cheers.  Collect (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, you don't own the article - there is no requirement that anyone 'accommodates' to anything except the requirement that articles are balanced, relevant, informative, and properly sourced. Now, can you explain why you think that Levine's ethnicity is more significant than his religious beliefs? Neither have anything to do with his notability, but you seem intent on finding any excuse to include one, and exclude the other, despite basing both on an article where Levine himself makes clear that his 'Jewishness' isn't based on adherence to formal beliefs (or at least, to formal practice)? The simple fact is that to describe someone as simply 'Jewish' is ambiguous, and we have sufficient data to clarify (to some extent) that ambiguity, based on the words of the only 'reliable source' that really matters - Levine himself. You have done nothing during this discussion other than pursue a relentless campaign to slap a label on Levine, in pursuit of your usual nit-picking, circular-argument-based, illogical ethno-tagging agenda, in blatant disregard for the interests of Wikipedia, and this latest episode seems to me to demonstrate once again that you are unsuited to working on Wikipedia biographies, given your refusal to work within WP:NPOV, or to accept that 'Jewishness' is a complex issue, not a simple yes-no question that Wikipedia should be making rulings on. This is not a database or a court of law, and shouldn't be treated like it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—you say that, "…to describe someone as simply 'Jewish' is ambiguous…" Actually it means just what it says, but like all information, it is incomplete. Note that this applies to all information—all information is incomplete. The question becomes, why are we bothering in further elaborating on the fact that Adam Levine is Jewish? My contention is that there is no reason for further elaboration. That is because this is an article on a "singer-songwriter and musician"—religion does not come into play in any obvious way. Therefore, in my opinion, a bare sketch of his background is appropriate, and nothing more. The reader has resources available in the form of citations, a "Further reading" section, and an "External links" section. In my opinion there is an appropriate "depth" to information presented in an article, especially a WP:BLP, and especially when the subject is religion. Stating that Levine is Jewish is not strikingly "ambiguous". In my opinion we should not be burdening the article with what, in context, is relatively unimportant. Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that what is important in your opinion is clearly distorted by your obsession with labelling people as 'Jewish' for no other reason than that you have a source for it, why should anyone care what you think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually this discussion was long underway before I joined it. Here is the previous discussion on this Notice-board. I assume it was previously underway on the article Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What has that got to do with anything? How about explaining why you think that we should include reliably-sourced information regarding Levine's ethnicity in his bio, but exclude information regarding his beliefs? This is what is at issue here, not who said what, where when, or why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is unskillful to post this on BLP/N and then rehash your usual debates that you've already had with each other a hundred times on Talk:Adam Levine. The purpose of posting here is to get other people's opinions, not to spread your war across Wikipedia like a battle between Godzilla and... some other big monster. See WP:EGO. I strongly urge you both to stop replying to each other and let others weigh in. causa sui (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Off2. As he suggests above, just say"  "Levine is Jewish."  For the reasons he and other reasons suggest.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Off2riorob's comment of 02:05, 24 August 2011 - just say "Levine is Jewish" and leave it at that. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer if people would explain why they think we should be including information about ethnicity, but not about beliefs. Given that neither is relevant to Levine's notability, is there actually a reason to include one, and not the other? Or to look at it another way, is there any policy based reason why I can't add a brief sourced statement about Levine's (self-asserted) beliefs to a sentence about his ethnicity? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: User:All Hallow's Wraith has now revised the text again, to read "Levine is Jewish (the religion of his father and maternal grandfather). He has rejected formal religion". . AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * yeah I agree with Off2riorob, Epeefleche, and *gulp* Jayjg, it is evident in the interview that the subject of religion is both sensitive to Levine (hesitant to speak about it) and not really relevant to his public life (unlike his self-identification as Jewish) - and yes, absence of formalized ritual is not absence of religion or even informal ritual - the Roman Catholic comparison is apt. However, I would recommend getting a different source to reduce the temptation of wanting to expand the quote, if that becomes the consensus. And of course, And Andy, I wish ethnic self-identification was irrelevant, but it general it is because that's the world we live in, and this an encyclopedia about that world, so it is relevant to our interests. In this specific case, Levine does wear it on his sleeve, so its a no brainer. --Cerejota (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just when resolution to this seems imminent, the same thing happens again. Can others please weigh in here? I thought several editors in the above discussion supported the rejection of extended commentary on Adam Levine's religion. There is still the insistence that we characterize Adam Levine's Jewishness some way. What do others think? Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The topic is really, really, most sincerely dead. Consensus is quite clear, and I think it avails you little to continue on this tack. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Jennings
The article violates the biography policy in that it is not from a neutral point of view (NPOV). There are several Kevin Jennings controversies that led to his resignation that continue to be modified and erased:

1. In 2000 Kevin Jennings was the keynote speaker at the GLSEN/Boston Conference at Tufts University where “youth only, ages 14-21″ learned in a workshop at the conference about fisting and watersports from the GLSEN activists. GLSEN leaders eventually apologized.

2. In 2001, Jennings' GLSEN activists handed out “fisting kits” to the children and teachers who attended the Jennings' GLSEN conference.

3. In 2005, hundreds of middle school age and up children at Brookline High School in Brookline, Massachusetts attended Kevin Jennnings’ GLSEN 2005 Conference. Activists at the conference passed out the “Little Black Book – Queer in the 21st Century,” a book that exposes children to Rimming, Fisting, Water Sports and Sex Toys.

4. While the "social conservatives" surely did not like the fact that it appeared Jennings condoned the sex acts between a minor and an adult, but they actually campaigned against Jennings because he was irresponsible as an educator in not reporting the statutory rape.

These were included and referenced VERIFIABLE in an edit on August 24, 2011... and the old Kevin Jennings biography appeared shortly thereafter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtim29 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources must also be reliable and high-quality. Your sources were an editorial on a conservative blog site, an anonymous posting on a forum, an anonymous posting on an anti-gay organization's site, and an editorial posted on a conservative site (by the president of an organization regarded as a hate group). You then synthesized the insinuation that these reports led to his resignation by moving them to a section titled "Controversies and Resignation".  Please read and understand WP:BLP, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources."  AV3000 (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Jamie Leigh Jones
This article again needs more eyes. A very aggressive editor is back inserting material that doesn't belong in the article or inserting too much material about a subject that should be limited to a small amount. I've dealt with this editor before, and it's exhausting. I've removed the material (both from the lead and a little from the body). I've commented on the Talk page. But I don't expect the editor to let it go without a major battle (he's verbose and drowns you in sources, quotes, and "reasons" why it belongs, at the same time saying he wants to cooperate). I also can't stand the editor's cites as they almost always have very long quotes that add even more stuff in the References section about the same thing. As I commented on the Talk page, I'm not sure I have the strength to deal with this, so maybe others can assist and offer their own views (obviously, they don't have to agree with me). This article has been talked about before on BLPN here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article does violate BLP and NPOV, and now FRINGE. A jury found against Jones, but the article is one-sided in Jones's favor, violating the BLP interests of the men she falsely accused. While one aggressive editor is inserting too much material, multiple editors are censoring far too much, deleting critical facts that are sourced by multiple RS, and making bogus BLP claims to justify it. I am withdrawing from this article because I don't have time for Wikidrama, but it's pretty appalling when editors are pushing a POV to the left of Mother Jones. THF (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We're not required to include every claim KBR tried against Jones in the interests of the accused men who aren't even named in the article. It is not, as you claim, a BLP violation to fail to include their attempts to discredit the LP who is the article subject. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we could get into a debate about whether the "P" in "BLP" covers corporations as well as individuals, but I don't think that's necessary. The defendant men are people whether they're named or not, and so BLP policy applies to them no less than if they were named.  Skimming over the article, there seems to be some dissonance between the lead and the body.  The lead is simple: woman claims rape, prosecutors decline to prosecute, and she loses civil suit.  But then the body of the article has a whole section about her claims, without any corresponding section describing the claims of the defendants (i.e. the claims that prevailed in both the civil and criminal contexts).  So, I'm maybe getting a whiff here of an attempt to re-litigate the case on Wikipedia.  The article says, "A 2006 EEOC investigation found that Jones .... had been sexually assaulted by one or more employees...." If that EEOC finding of guilt is included in the article, it seems like the article should say how the defendants were able to persuade the civil and criminal authorities that the EEOC was wrong.  So, just looking briefly at the article, it seems a bit weird, but I could be mistaken.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been a controversial article for some time now. I don't see anything untoward about laying out her claims and saying she lost in that case. It's fairly clear from the article that KBR's defenses prevailed. In addition, the article is not about the case, but about Jones. If we want to do an article about the case, that would perhaps be done differently. Finally, the EEOC has nothing to do with "guilt" and, legally, is a completely different animal from a civil lawsuit. These are very legal issues and one issue in one legal context doesn't necessarily equate or rebut another issue in a diffferent legal context.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To a casual Wikipedia reader, it sure looks like the EEOC finding was contradicted or rejected by the court verdict, and the Wikipedia article doesn't seem to say why. Instead, it looks kinda like the Wikipedia article is presenting the EEOC finding as evidence that the court was wrong.  Anyway, I recommend a separate article about the case, including a description of the defendants' defenses, and then this article's treatment could be shortened into a summary of the new article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Casual, as in just a first-time visitor to the article? Like me? I see an article with a lead which has a grand jury investigating her claims but issuing no indictments, a civil jury deciding against her when she sued LBR, but no mention that a  EEOC investigation found Jones had been sexually assaulted by one or more employees. The EEOC finding is down in the body text and I can't see how it could remotely be construed as Wikipedia presenting it as evidence that the court was wrong. To the contrary. By not including it in the intro I think we have created an imbalance to the detriment of the BLP subject. Moriori (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's actually worse than that because the EEOC finding is in the section called Jones's accusations. It's not an accusation. It's a finding by a federal agency, although it's not the same as a jury verdict, but then neither is a grand jury not returning an indictment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm a first-time visitor to the article. I wouldn't put the EEOC thing into the lead just yet.  It's still very unclear what effect it had, whether it was subject to appeal, and what relation it had to the court case.  Definitely it doesn't belong in an accusations section, but the whole article is kind of messed up as discussed above, so it would be best to start from square one, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I definitively wouldn't put it in the lead and it is questionable to have it anywhere in the article. It's current citation is not a BLP allowable source -- but even if one is found (and I've looked and couldn't find one) -- it is misleading and I think that's why the sources don't mention it.   Hoping To Help (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My view is Jones isn't notable except for her accusations and the various investigations and cases spawned by those accusations. Therefore, the best thing would be to have an article that discusses them. It wouldn't be about one case but about all of the "cases", even though some of them aren't really cases.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, that sounds good. If it turns out later that her congressional testimony and her founding of a non-profit organization justify a separate article about her, then it could be very brief.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, do we have a volunteer to write Jones v. Haliburton and related proceedings?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this would help a lot! My suggest would be to call it Jones v. KBR and related proceedings since most all the sources refer to KBR and not Haliburton. Hoping To Help (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP considerations for the men accused of gang rape
I think we need to make it very clear that the men being accused of these lurid crimes need just as much WP:BLP protection as Jones.

PROPOSAL: Have a BLP warning box at the top of the article reminding people to be mindful of BLP considerations for all the individuals involved: Jones, the firefighters and the guards.

If people were to make an effort to be fair to both sides of this dispute (and care as much about protecting the men as they do Jones) -- then this would go a long way to cutting down on the edit warring. Hoping To Help (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

ALSO: Above Rosceles said: "It is not, as you claim, a BLP violation to fail to include their attempts to discredit the LP who is the article subject."

I think this is an issue that needs to be resolved. Whereas, we certainly don't need to include *every* "attempt to discredit the LP." The litany of charges against them shouldn't go unanswered. Basically, giving Jones a plantform to detail her accusations -- without including the men's side as reported in Reliable Sources is WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE therefore a violation of WP:BLP.

And even the phrasing of "their attempts to discredit the LP" -- reveals a troubling bias. We should be documenting both sides of the story as reported in the Reliable Sources. If one views each edit that includes the defense's side of the story (as reported in RS) as an "attempt to discredit" Jones -- then one is going to see BLP violations against Jones where they don't really exist.

Just put yourself in their shoes. Imagine someone accused you of being a child molester. And their charges are included in lurid detail. It doesn't balance it out to  just  report that you won in court. Because without hearing your side -- people will still assume that you're guilty and that you probably got off on a technicality. Hoping To Help (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All BLP's or BLP related topics already carry such a box by default. If there is consensus in the talkpage, an editnotice could be placed with the additional warning at the time of editing.


 * However, you apparently misunderstood the point Rosceles was making, and took a quote out of context: unnamed parties deserve some BLP protection, but that is weaker than the protection a named subject requires. You seem to argue "equal treatment" - and BLP and UNDUE do not argue equal treatment, they argue neutral treatment - often this means that one side of a dispute is given more coverage than another, for a variety of reasons (often unrelated to neutrality, for example notability itself). Since the parties accused of rape are unknown to the wiki they do not deserve equal treatment. The topic of the court cases is indeed well covered in the article, and that is enough protection, as no claim regarding the case is made outside of a court of law or the context of the several court cases is presented. The response of KBR on their belief that justice was served is plenty of response.


 * Your emotional example is invalid, because this is not remotely similar to a case of someone accused of child molesting, who was cleared of charges in court. There is no analogy here. This was a complex case with great political and economic interests involved, notable not for the emotional aspect of rape, but for the political and economic interests involved and the political consequences it had.


 * WP:UNDUE does requires that we include answers to charges, which is done in the lede, but not any answer - just widely reported ones in RS as reporting not opinion. In a correct analogy, imagine if you are a woman who was gang-raped, but the rapists get off clear because of a technicality or because other biases, how would you feel if people assume you weren't raped and that you probably made the whole thing up? I am not saying that the subject here was raped or that the rapists got off on a technicality, but this analogy is way more applicable. I think that your respect for privacy of anonymous figures not mentioned in the wiki needs to be tempered by greater respect for a figure named in the wiki - you certainly are capable of understanding the moral basis of BLP protection, but I think you are not applying it with vigor to the subject of the article.


 * Also, the entire personal life section has nothing to do with why this person is notable, and appears irrelevant, I suggest it be removed.


 * In addition, this article is a borderline WP:BLP1E, she is notable only for alleging a gang rape, and as such such I am not sure she should be covered by an article. I suggest the possibility of this being renamed and redirected to a neutral title that suggest the topic is her case, not herself (for example 2005 Baghdad KBR employee gang-rape case or some other descriptive name). If this is not done, perhaps an AfD might be in order. It just seems this is borderline WP:NOTNEWSPAPER stuff and is just sitting here asking for the subject to be smeared.--Cerejota (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you've presented a great example of the conflict I'm talking about. I would argue that unnamed people need just as much BLP protection as named. Especially in this case where almost all the published articles contain the firefighters name and even the Wikipedia article use to have his name and his name is still on the talk page.
 * In the DSK article there was a great deal of concern around the BLP interest of the maid even when she wasn't named in the article and hadn't been named in any U.S. papers.
 * And back to the Jones issue -- I would argue that she needs less BLP protection b/c she has made herself a public figure by:


 * Testifying multiple times before congress


 * Giving multiple interviews on national TV -- where she chose to show her face and give her name.


 * Writing a book about her experience.


 * Selling her life story for a movie.


 * While the men she has accused of crimes have not given any interviews and have kept as low a profile as possible.
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

All of these things are compelling reasons for not considering the subject as a WP:BLP1E, however, it is not reflected on the article as written. Giving multiple interviews and testifying in congress, selling your life story for a movie, and writing a book, would seem to be enough for notability, but they are not alone such. How much independent coverage these things had? How notable was the coverage of the book? Did it chart? What about the movie? Was her presence in congress widely reported in itself? Dozens of non-notables stories get turned into made-for-tv or direct-to-video movies, thousands of self-published books or books published by non-notable publishers get published, thousands of people get interviewed in national tv news,

I reserve final knowledge for now, but I am having trouble seeing the long-term encyclopedic value of this biography, its real notability, other than as a footnote to the Bush-era Iraq war political environment, and hence it is the cases, not herself, who are notable.

Now, this is important, the people accused and found not guilty have chosen to keep a low profile. We should respect that, no doubt, with the utmost kindness and care, the same we show to anyone under BLP. However there is nothing in BLP policy that prohibits the existence of this information in the edit history or the talk pages unless there has been WP:OFFICE action in this regards, or in the case of personal identifiers such as addresses, social security numbers etc. It does protects these subjects from being mentioned in the current version unless they forfeit this privacy by appearing in reliable sources. But this privacy also means they forfeit the right to respond. We cannot do an artificial valuation of due or undue weight, we must base ourselves on what reliable sources tell us as a whole (not a nitpicked selection). And for better of for worse, their choice of privacy also means they cannot reply - while you make a compelling case of a possible consequence of this choice, we are not under any responsibility to speak for any choice. This principle applies to BLPs too - we are simply much more careful to make sure the information is verifiable than we are in other information. What you suggest seems to be to be a combo of WP:GAME/WP:OR, you seem to be trying to advance a position not supported by widespread verifiable coverage in reliable sources by gaming the intent and letter of BLP protection. BLP protection is not independent of the other policies of wikipedia - it is a more strict enforcement of them to protect living people, as such, using them in ways that violates other policies is gaming. Examine very closely what you are suggesting - WP:BOOMERANG.--Cerejota (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I would politely request that you [Assume Good Faith]. I am not in any way trying to game the system.


 * My central request, that I wrote in bold above is this: We should be documenting both sides of the story as reported in the Reliable Sources. It's been my experience that a couple of editors are much to quick to delete edits (that are fully cited with highly reliable sources) b/c they feel is shows Jones in a bad light. This, of course, goes against WP:BLP.


 * Second, WE ACTUALLY AGREE -- but you appear not to have noticed. Above I wrote: My suggest would be to call it Jones v. KBR and related proceedings since most all the sources refer to KBR and not Haliburton.] For a long time I have been in favor renaming & rewriting the article so it is about the cases/proceedings and not Jones.
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote, as I said "seems". This is important, because even if that is not your intention, this is how you came across to me. AGF is precisely why I said seems. And we agree on changing the title, but my suggestion was different. I didn't address yours, because it apparently has not been accepted before, and my intention is not to rehash old debates but to help the encyclopedia move forward.--Cerejota (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith

 * Perhaps you might want to re-read WP:AGF. It does not rise to the level of Assuming Good Faith to qualify an allegation of bad motives with the modifier "seems."


 * When one follows WP:AGF, one "assumes" that other editors are doing their best to improve articles -- and so there would be no reason to mention WP:GAME. As WP:GAME defines Gaming the system as: "deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia."


 * So you were essentially, saying "It seems that you are deliberately using WP policies in bad faith".


 * Instead, you could have followed WP:AGF by saying that you thought I might be misunderstanding or misapplying WP:BLP and that you believe that the method I'm suggesting might (unintentionally) harm the article.


 * That said, I don't always do as good a job of WP:AGF as I would like and so this is a good reminder to me as well.
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP as it applies to named vs. unnamed individuals

 * ... But I would first like us to focus on the issue of unnamed vs. named people. Specifically, where the person goes unnamed in the Wikipedia article -- but their name is easily found when googling the subject. This seems like a larger policy issue -- does anyone know the right place to get this addressed?
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If a person is unnamed in the WP article (but are named in public sources) are they less needing/deserving of BLP protection?
 * Do/did you feel the same in the DSK case (back when the maid was not named)?
 * If an alleged rape victim is unnamed (as is often the case) does she warrant less WP:BLP protection than the named person she is accusing of raping her? Inquiring minds want to know. :-)
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that WP:BLP is inadequate, then you might want to suggest an improvement at that policy's talk page. In the mean time, BLP says: "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." So, the small group of unnamed people at issue here should get BLP coverage.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This and all of his edits above are perfect examples of Hoping to Help's style. Perhaps others can deal with it, but after having made valiant efforts in the past to do so, it now simply wears me out. I confess I don't even read all of it - too painful. Normally, I try to stay away from this kind of post (picking on an editor), but, for me, this is exceptional.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Enthusiasm can be tiring. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, but enthusiasm for what, exactly?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be helpful, I guess, if we AGF.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Like his user ID? Heh. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, e.g., a vandal, which Hoping to Help is not, I assume good faith in the beginning. However, I don't blindly extend the assumption when I see good reason not to. My last word on this issue as it was probably inappropriate to begin with.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If they are named in verifiable reliable sources in a way that meets the thresholds of notability, they should be included in the article, and hence be named. You cannot have it both ways: if you are mentioned in an article, you have a legitimate UNDUE claim to the topic. If potentialy harming information is excluded including your name, then this UNDUE issue is resolved by no discussing them at all. As this article reads, there is no mention of the accused at all other than as unnamed parties to a criminal proceeding that found them not guilty. There is no UNDUE issue there. Thats what their public presence amounts to according to Wikipedia. If we selectively exclude their name, that weakens the case for including other material. To be clear, BLP1E doesn't prohibit naming suspects of crimes or accusers of crimes (all other inclusion criteria being equal), it prohibits creating articles on them and including information not related tot he event that made them BLP1E.
 * DSK is irrelevant to this discussion, and I haven't looked at how this case is portrayed in Wikipedia. Certainly his accuser is subjected to WP:BLP1E, in fact, it is a classic BLP1E case. She doesn't warrant equal time with DSK in DSK's article, and in fact, from what I have read about the case, this all seems highly prejudicial to DSK, and we should make sure to protect this living person. Likewise, we should protect the accuser as per BLP1E, because unlike DSK, she was not notable before the case, and is unlikely to gain independent notability. So far I have not seen anything here about that article, so I am guessing those issues are being handled by the editors of that article without the need of uninvolved editors in the BLPN commenting.
 * I generally do not like dealing in hypotheticals. It would depended on a case by case basis. Do you have a specific article in mind to make a judgement on? In this case, it is not the issue of they being named or not named that I am making a judgement on, its the claim that BLP means that they be allowed an UNDUE voice because BLP says so. I say their well kept privacy as a consequence means their weigh in V RS is less, so UNDUE makes no requirement that we speak for them. We cannot speak for those who do not speak, or do so in a manner that doesn't meet V RS. BLP makes no requirement we do not attribute a position and present it, and it is OR to presume KBR is speaking for the accused. So in this case, the unamed do not warrant an equal treatment in the article
 * I hope I answered these to your satisfaction, if not to your agreement.--Cerejota (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said above, my central request is this: We should be documenting both sides of the story as reported in the Reliable Sources. If I've been unclear about that then I apologize. I don't believe BLP should be used to get in extra info. It's just been my experience that a couple of editors are much to quick to delete edits (that are fully cited with highly reliable sources) b/c they feel is shows Jones in a bad light. This, of course, is NOT what WP:BLP directs us to do -- and the consistent deletion of one side of what the Reliable Sources report has caused the article to become WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A key her is that it is not just as reported in the Reliable Sources, but also with more or less the same due weight as the reliable sources, taken as a whole, give them. This is not an exact science, but rarely it means "equal time", You are missing this point, and I have made it repeatedly: not everything said in an RS must be included in order to provide due weight. Verifiability, not truth (a policy) suggests that if a given viewpoint in support of one side even if published in an RS, is not a prevalent response, nor a generalized, verifiable view. I am not looking at the source itself, and saying: your abstract valuation is incorrect. You have to prove, to other editors, as per WP:BURDEN why this shoulod be included, and your are not performing a key step in the proof, which is a verifiability check. Being mentioned once or twice in a reliable source, when the opposing position is mentioned 100 times in reliable sources, puts UNDUE in perspective.
 * A reminder: this is a noticeboard, not the article talk page, and I am not trying to say you are right or wrong on what should be included in the article. I am pointing out incorrect assumptions on policy being made, from the perspective of someone somewhat experienced on these issues. I think both sides have valid points to make for inclusion or exclusion. But the BLP issues here are not related to UNDUE, they are related to WP:BLP1E, IMHO.--Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, as I (and others) have stated above -- it is our belief that the current article is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. So much so that it is violation of WP:FRINGE.


 * One of the reason this has occurred is that two editors tend to remove almost anything that they believe might tend cast Jones in a bad light [even though it has been properly cited by The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, etc.] They wrongly claim it is as BLP violation and so they remove it without any discussion. They also seem to believe that they're not subject to 3RR since they are (wrongly) claiming it to be a BLP violation.
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"But this privacy also means they forfeit the right to respond."
Above Cerejota states: "But this privacy also means they forfeit the right to respond."

But this isn't necessary, or even usually the case. Usually alleged victims of sexual assault maintain their privacy -- but they still have the ability to respond either through their lawyers or by talking directly to the journalists (who will then report their side -- while keeping their name private). The same is true for juveniles -- their "side/version" of an alleged crime may be fully reported in Reliable Sources -- yet their names are often kept private.

Now, it is true that if someone's "side" is not written about in Reliable Sources -- then we can't tell their side for them. This is because WP:Verifiable, WP:UNDUE always apply in addition to (or actually, especially in the case of) WP:BLP. And so, yes, you're correct when you say: "We cannot do an artificial valuation of due or undue weight, we must base ourselves on what reliable sources tell us as a whole (not a nitpicked selection)."

But you're making an incorrect assumption when you go on to say: "And for better of for worse, their choice of privacy also means they cannot reply..." There are lots of ways that people can and do get there "side" reported in Reliable Sources while maintaining their privacy. As an example: A person can file a huge lawsuit like Roe v. Wade under an alias and still get lots of press -- while keeping their name out of Reliable Sources. Hoping To Help (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

On a separate note, the only firefighter directly accused of rape has been extensively named in reliable sources. So there is actually an argument for including his name in the article. (Although, I'm ambivalent.)

And his "side" (which is interlinked with KBR's side) has been extensively reported in reliable sources -- mainly through covering/reporting on the public trial and the subsequent motion for fees. The issue, as it relates to the Jamie Leigh Jones article, is that detailed and lurid allegations (that were disproved in a court of law) have been included in the article -- yet the responses to those allegations ( that are in the very same cited source ) -- have been kept out of the article. This is an example of what leads to the article being in a state of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and even WP:FRINGE.

Hoping To Help (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

New article title
There seens to be broad consensus to re-name the article so that it's about the case(s) rather than one of the parties. Usual practice is to simply use a title like the court(s) gave, such as "Jones v. Halliburton and KBR". What we can't do is include something like "the gang rape case" in the title. Even if we inserted "alleged" that would still be problematic for rwo reasons: (1) the courts have rejected the allegation, and (2) per WP:Title, "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".)"Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a discussion for a "Requested Move" debate in the article page if someone proposes it. Article name alternatives shouldn't be extensively discussed here.


 * However, while your point on possible neutrality issues is well taken (and I didn't consider this when making a quick example) your argument is incorrect in a general sense: there is nothing in the policy that recommends "Jones v. Halliburton and KBR" nor is it the usual practice. The only such article titles that are customary are articles on US Supreme Court decisions (or other such notable court cases) in which the article is about the jurisprudence issues themselves (for example, Dred Scott v. Sandford). Articles in which the legal proceedings are of no interest to the law profession on a technical level (such as this one, which is a pedestrian rape case and a pedestrian employer liability case whose consequences or notability is due to reasons other than the legal profession). This case is more similar to the O. J. Simpson murder case (aka People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson), that is, a discussion of not just the case, but the wider social and political context of the case, or even details of the crime. For example, Murder of Rhys Jones doesn't even mention the name of the court case, and "Murder of/Death of" articles are indeed a usual practice (I am actually currently involved on a series of policy debates on this, but this point is not affected by that debate). We rarely if ever use the name the court gave. I dare you to present just one relevant example in which a criminal charge with no notable legal consequences is named for the court case. There is not a single such article that I am able to find. ANd if we find them, I would seriously consider renaming it.


 * Article titles do need to reflect the topic narrowly construed, but a topic is determined by the wide availability of reliable sources. If you feel there are potential WP:POVTITLE issues with a given title, say so and raise the reasons why, but a non-neutral name is certainly preferable to an obscure technical name (and in this case, the title you propose is not even correct in a technical sense, as the criminal case has an entirely different name).


 * And I am not suggesting this or having an debate on what the policy should be. What I am saying is that the applicable policy (WP:AT, more specifically the section WP:COMMONNAME) as it stands today and widely understood and the real usual practice is to very rarely if ever use the official name of the case as the article title (and there is even spotty use of court case names in the article text itself, simply because few reliable sources report the case names). I have no idea were you thought that naming any article about a criminal case after the case title is the usual practice. It isn't and has never been. If all of the sudden the reliable sources decided to start using case names as the common name for a case, that might change, but that isn't currently the case. --Cerejota (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is to give the article a name that broadly refers to the sum of the ongoing disputes (between Jones and KBR/Haliburton), both in and out of court. Those disputes have been fought in and around:


 * The media (newspapers, magazines, 20/20 etc.)
 * Congress (testimony and eventual passage of legislation related to binding arbitration requirements in employment contracts)
 * Criminal Grand Jury
 * Appeals Court over whether Jones could sue in civil court instead of binding arbitration.
 * Civil Lawsuit
 * Motion for fees


 * So I would suggest something like:
 * Jamie Leigh Jones versus KBR, or
 * Jamie Leigh Jones and KBR, or
 * Jamie Leigh Jones versus KBR: related disputes, or
 * Jamie Leigh Jones and KBR: related disputes, or
 * Disputes between Jamie Leigh Jones and KBR


 * And I'm also fine with the suggestions made above of something like:
 * Jones v. Haliburton and related proceedings, or
 * Jones v. KBR and related proceedings


 * But I have some concern about the word proceedings in that I've seen a lot of wikilawering go on over the article -- and I don't want to generate discussions of what does or does not qualify as a "proceeding". So maybe:


 * Jones v. Haliburton and related disputes, or
 * Jones versus KBR and related disputes
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't discuss this here, do in article talk
 * None of those examples are rules compliant as per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV or as descriptive names, have serious neutrality issues as well as less serious MOS issues
 * Do reconsider what is clearly a push to make this topic about what it is not about. For example, the proposed titles don't mention "gang rape" anywhere - which is central to the case, and only the civil lawsuit involved KBR directly (so as a secondary feature, shouldn't be in the title), and using "gang rape" doesn't break neutrality at all. For example, OJ Simpson was cleared of murder charges, but the article is still O.J. Simpson murder case. I know you came here seeking recourse on an UNDUE issue, but once you open the pandora's box it is open both ways.--Cerejota (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Cerejota, you say: "Don't discuss this here, do in article talk." -- but then you go on and discuss it here ... so I'm going to respond to your points here.


 * You accuse me of engaging in "what is clearly a push to make this topic about what it is not about."


 * It seems you are misunderstanding my motives and many of the facts regarding this particular article, please read here and here.


 * Lets look at each of your assertions:


 * "gang rape ... is central to the case": Well, maybe.  Gang rape wasn't alleged until 2 years after the event.  And then Jones' lawyers dropped it and never claimed gang rape during the actual trial.  But they did make the following eight (8) claims against KBR in the civil suit:  negligence;  negligent undertaking; retaliation; breach of contract; fraud in the inducement to enter the employment contract; fraud in the inducement to agree to arbitration; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and, false imprisonment.
 * Other important (and arguable the most encyclopedic) aspects of this case include:
 * the appeals court rulings about arbitration (against KBR in favor of Jones);
 * and, the law passed by Congress (inspired by Jones and at her urging) allowing employees to bring certain cases to trial instead of arbitration. KBR was one of he main targets of this legislation and was mentioned whenever this legislation was covered in reliable sources.
 * Additionally, as mentioned above by User:Anythingyouwant: Having gang rape in the title would violate WP:Title which states: "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".)" Since allegation implies wrongdoing -- and a jury decided that there was no wrongdoing, we would be in violation of WP:NPOV to include the allegation in the title.
 * Therefore, I would argue that the allegation of gang rape is one of many aspects of the case. And from an encyclopedic perspective it is not central -- for it is a charge that was made late and then dropped -- and also that it is more inflammatory and newsy than having lasting importance. And ultimately, a jury determined that the allegation was false -- that no rape of any kind occurred.


 * "only the civil lawsuit involved KBR directly": From the beginning she and the news media (Reliable Sources) have made KBR at least as big, and arguably a bigger, culprit than the alleged rapist. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Reliable Source that mentioned Jamie Leigh Jones, but didn't mention KBR or Halliburton -- certainly they'd be few and far between. But just for fun I challenge you to find even one. :-)
 * Actually, almost every aspect of this issue involves KBR: The testimony before Congress; the media appearances (20/20, etc.); appeals court rulings around arbitration; the law passed by congress concerning arbitration requirements in employment contracts; the civil trial; the motion for fees. All of these aspects involve KBR.
 * Also, Jones alleged that she was held in a "shipping container" for 24 hours by KBR guards with "machine guns" and she wasn't given food or water. So here she is alleging that the crime of false imprisonment is being committed by employees of KBR as part of their job duties.


 * "OJ Simpson was cleared of murder charges, but the article is still O.J. Simpson murder case": Prosecutors failed to win a criminal conviction, but Simpson lost his civil case. The civil jury found that he did commit murder.  In contrast, KBR won their civil suit and the jury explicitly found that the sex was consensual and no rape had been committed. A better comparison would be:
 * Duke lacrosse case, or even
 * New York v. Strauss-Kahn -- where rape is not in the title even though police found grounds to arrest him, and a grand jury found probably cause to indict him (in contrast to Jones alleged attacker who was never arrested nor indicted) and DSK never had a jury declare his sex consensual (in contrast to Jones' case where the jury determined that she had consensual sex and was not raped).


 * Given the above facts I would request that you withdraw your repeated assertions that I'm trying to game the system or that I'm somehow "push[ing] to make this topic about what it is not about."
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Billy Corgan
There's an effort by a small number of editors to turn a Twitter fight between the musician and a guitar technician into a big deal, based on some of the invective Corgan uses. One of the editors involved had dredged up a story on Corgan's blog about an incident 25 years ago and insisted that the two events establish a patterm of "transphobic bias". There's no real RS coverage of the event, just a few bloggers so far, and the claims raise conspicuous NPOV, NOR, BLP, and undue weight problems. It's a standard embarrassing celebrity behavior story that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I understand your point that the issue hasn't reached mainstream media coverage or anything like that, and that's a valid consideration. But then again (A) a wikipedia article about a celebrity should be more than just a collection of facts from mainstream/celebrity gossip rags, and (B) the media has consistently shown it is unwilling to engage in trans issues.  If it was a question of racism the media would be all over it, and probably even if it were homophobia.  For example, when Tracy Morgan went on a homophobic rant in a comedy club the media were all over the _question_ within a few days, and of course it turned out the allegation was well-founded and Morgan eventually apologized (and the allegation in that case was only based on what a single club-goer reported about the incident).  But the bar is set higher when it comes to trans issues because no one takes it seriously.  And in fact relatively speaking it has gotten a lot of people's attention, and in this case it is based on verifiable, recorded tweets and fb messages.  The fact that the media doesn't care is not proof that it is not true nor an unimportant issue.  Yavanna of Valinor (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, when you put the phrase "transphobic bias" in scare quotes, are you implying that the allegation is unsubstantiated (which I think is difficult to argue) or are you implying that the issue itself is unimportant? Yavanna of Valinor (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sympathetic to your views on transphobia, but at the same time, accusations of bigotry have to be supported by high-quality sources, which doesn't seem to be the case here. It may be unfair, but that can't change the policy equation. I also think your point about "scare quotes" is misguided. No doubt Hullaballo put it in quotes the way we put lots of thing in quotes because that was the assertion, no darker reason than that.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the mainstream media doesn't care then neither should we, we are not here to balance the world. Or to report of social media/facebook discusions. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, looks like most people are against including this so I will let it go for now. Thanks for the discussion. Yavanna of Valinor (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the drawback of Wikipedia being unable to put 2 + 2 together itself. We require a source to do that for us.  (by the way, simple logic like 2 + 2 is acceptable to convert into 4, but most people would still require a reliable source before they would let you add it) -- Avanu (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper
The paragraph about Anderson Cooper's orientation may violate WP:BLP's requirement of high-quality sources; see earlier Tim Cook discussion for a nearly identical situation.

The citations are from non-mainstream sources, all of a speculative nature except for an article in the Washington Blade asserting that he "has in the past publicly acknowledged that he is gay" without elaboration.

As with Cook, Cooper has neither affirmed nor denied being gay, though he has provided a no-comment response when asked.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: 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".

So, the question is again whether any of these mostly-speculative sources, or the sum of them, are reliable enough to allow the topic be included in the BLP; I lean against. AV3000 (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As I iterate in many places - "contentious" claims require strong sourcing. In the case of Anderson Cooper, I am far from convinced that the sourcing rises to the level reasonably required by WP:BLP.   In fact, it fails to reach the required level in my opinion.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting a bit absurd. Do we require people to say, in their own words and with excellent sources, that they are married? According to whom is there any contention about this subject's sexual orientation? Is there a single source which questions this?   Will Beback    talk    23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not how WP:BURDEN works, particularly with BLPs. AV3000 (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)No - and I note the absurdity really present here. The term "reliable source" appears to be a major problem for your position. Cheers. And I fail to see the relevance of this colloquy to the agreed principles of Wikipedia. If you feel that WP:BLP is overly protective of living people, just say so, and seek to have it deprecated from being policy. Collect (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think BLP is fine. It's the interpretation that Cooper's sexual orientation is "contentious" that i disagree with. In any case, AV3000 says there's a problem with the sourcing. Please be specific- which sources are inadequate? Let's remove those and keep the rest.   Will Beback    talk    23:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that AC is gay has more sources than almost any fact in the whole article, yet certain editors persist in wanting to remove it. One even demanded (perhaps facetiously) photos.  They never try to remove other facts that are less well sourced.  They assume it must be contentious, even while acknowledging that he has never contested it.  It's just a fact about a public figure, and the endless re-hashing is a tiresome waste of time.  Will, your offer to delete "inadequate" sources is WP:AGF, but I've seen that road before; after the sources get hacked away, someone says there are too few.  One editor said that even where someone says "I'm gay," that isn't enough for the biography to say anything because who knows if he's still gay (maybe it was just a phase?).  My favorite is the exasperated title, "How Many Times Can One Guy Get Outed?"  That really sums it up.TVC 15 (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A request was made for input into these discussions from members of the LGBT Studies project. That project has long had the standard that for sexual orientation to be given in BLPs it must be publicly self-identified. See WikiProject LGBT studies, #3 (a). Lady of  Shalott  03:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be misreading the text. The phrase you quoted refers to categories (WP:CAT).TVC 15 (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. The phrase "categorized and identified" (emphasis mine) is not only about categories.  Lady  of  Shalott  04:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - the policy must have changed since I remember having this discussion before - I'll comment on the Discussion page but I think Anderson Cooper illustrates the point: he has identified himself as gay, and WP:RS have done the same, he just doesn't keep jumping up and down and shouting it every five minutes, so the process of straightwashing keeps building closets around him. Many people seem well-intentioned but put him in a difficult position, either he has to become an activist or he gets presumed closeted, he isn't allowed to be just an ordinary gay person with ancestors from various countries including apparently Spain.TVC 15 (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The current article doesn't include any mention of him publicly identifying himself as gay. If you update the article with appropriate refs or at least mention them here, it would greatly help the discussion. BTW, there's no way some random not great source claiming he publicly identified in the past, without any evidence (e.g. a direct quote) or other RS that back it up counts as him having publicly identified anymore then if the same RS were to claim he had in the past publicly confirmed he was dating female X would count as him having publicly identified as dating female X. Nil Einne (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's in the linked Washington Blade article, "Anderson Cooper...publicly acknowledged that he is gay." The Blade is an award-winning newspaper in print for more than 40 years, clearly a WP:RS, and it's only one of several linked sources in the article.  Short of a notarized affidavit, repeated hourly, I don't know how much evidence it would take to persuade some people.TVC 15 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The full quote, which is stated earlier in this thread, is "The program was moderated by CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, who has in the past publicly acknowledged that he is gay." Not much of a self-identification. If he has self-identified in the past, why isn't there a source of when he did so, as oppposed to this allusion to nothing?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...because, although it isn't "nothing," it also isn't the huge dramatic occasion you seem to require. There isn't a source for him scouring Spain to confirm via DNA whether some of his ancestors came from there, he doesn't go weekly to Yale to confirm in front of witnesses that he was once a student there, etc.TVC 15 (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've given my opinion about this at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation_of_BLPs/Workshop. I think it's important for us to ensure that material does not become "contentious" just because some editors think it's an embarrassing thing.  Doing so violates our neutral point of view.  There will be times when a biographic subject is quite open about being gay, and it's the source that claims he's currently in a relationship with a woman that will need the extra scrutiny. Wnt (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not identify someone as gay, Jewish, Protestant, or anything else unless they self-identify. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is suggesting doing that we identify him as gay, Jewish, or anything else. We're talking about reporting his comments and others on the topic. That's a very different issue.    Will Beback    talk    04:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark of the beast: you are absolutely incorrect. If the preponderance of the reliable sources name someone as something, we can identify them as such. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and things like religion and sexual orientation can often fall in that category, in particular when the subject is on record with not wanting to discuss the topic. But there is 'no blanket prohibition of not mentioning potentially controversial information. BLP protection is similar to WP:FRINGE, just setting a bright line to protect against the fact that even reliable forces will engage in WP:SENSATION stuff. Jimbo Wales himself got a talking to by the community for trying to argue this "BLP cannot contradict self-description" during the Jimbo Wales/Larry Sanger "co-founder" saga. Self-description is important, and must be given due-weight, but widely, significantly, verifiably covered claims in reliable sources contradicting self description may be included as long as UNDUE is followed. In the concrete, I think the preponderance of the RS that do speak about the topic report wide speculation about Anderson Cooper being gay, but he refuses to speak about his personal life and gives his reasons. I think the article does reflect this in a manner covered under UNDUE, but a number of the sources are not reliable sources, and some are even self-published or user generated and should be removed. The idea that being gay is always an insult unless it is a self-description is insulting in itself, unless it is clear the intent of the sources used is WP:SENSATION, in which case we should remove them and delete whatever they source. --Cerejota (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, there is no contradiction. No source has ever contradicted the WP:RS that say he has identified himself as gay.  He has never said, "No I didn't say that."  (That is in addition to the fact that he has never said, "No I'm not gay.")  Now that he has become very famous, he just doesn't talk about it, for obvious reasons explained very well by one of the linked sources: if he talks about it now, it would become the first thing many outlets ask him about, instead of being just one thing in his bio, like having ancestors from Spain.  This isn't very complicated.  It's just a simple fact.  At the risk of sounding irritated, I do wish that people would leave it as a fact like any other, without imposing impossible expectations on him.  IF the concern is about facts, others in the article are less well sourced, and singling out this particular fact as an "extraordinary claim" is troubling in itself.  The sheer number of sources is intended to address the recurring straightwashing that has occurred in the past.  Please just leave him alone, he's gay, it's not a big deal, he doesn't need to march in a parade, he's probably too busy working anyway.  If a hurricane hits New Orleans and a gay event occurs in New York, he'll probably report on the hurricane, but that's just a matter of priorities, putting work first, it's not a contradiction.TVC 15 (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * IOW, you require that a person deny any allegations made no matter what they are, else the allegation belongs in Wikipedia? Nope. Collect (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not what I said, nor is it a fair paraphrase. This isn't an "allegation," no one is accusing him of a crime, and if you read the article's existing sources you'll see that he's acknowledged it; he isn't required to keep repeating himself every five minutes just to appease the people who hope it's only a phase. The specific paragraph you're objecting to simply points out that there is no contradiction.  BTW, if we're going to revisit all the facts on Wikipedia, someone should check whether Generalíssimo Francisco Franco is still dead; it's been a while since SNL last repeated the fact, so maybe he's resurrected again and driving a taxi somewhere, wouldn't want to leave a fact in without current sourcing, maybe we can station an editor by the mausoleum for weekly updates.TVC 15 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems fairly clear that the Washington Blade was in error, since it relies on a past occasion which no-one can trace. But it is reasonable to mention the widespread speculation in reliable sources under WP:WELLKNOWN, and when given an opportunity to comment on it Cooper did not say that he was distressed by it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why on earth would you assume "that the Washington Blade was in error" when there is so much corroboration and there has never been any correction, retraction, or contradiction? The notion of "a past occasion which no-one can trace" assumes there must have been some huge news story in itself, which is an illogical and unfounded assumption.  Really this begins to sound a lot like the birthers, some of whom still refuse to believe the President was born in the United States; no amount of evidence can persuade them.  The Blade is a serious newspaper, and if they got it wrong they would have apologized and issued a correction years ago. P.S. The WP article Sunrise says, "Sunrise is the instant at which the upper edge of the Sun appears above the horizon in the east."  Perhaps we should change that to, "Sunrise was the instant at which the sun was previously observed above the horizon in the east; widespread speculation in reliable sources claim that it will happen again tomorrow, and when given an opportunity to comment on it many people did not say they were distressed by it."TVC 15 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know to what the latter part of your comments are directed. I'm referring specifically to the statement "The program was moderated by CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, who has in the past publicly acknowledged that he is gay." That relies on there having been at least one occasion when Anderson Cooper said publicly that he was gay, but no-one has so far traced one. The fact that it is an off-handed reference with no direct relevance to the subject of the article makes it more likely that the author was mistakenly thinking that Anderson Cooper had publicly confirmed the speculation of others. Even the most reliable of sources is vulnerable to falling occasionally into error. You plainly did not read the rest of my comment after the first sentence. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I did read your whole comment, and the whole article. The latter part of my comment responded to the latter part of yours, where you wrote about speculation and distress.  You plainly assume that every statement ever made in public can somehow be "traced" (including apparently a transcript on the WWW or a video on YouTube) which obviously cannot be true.  AC is part of a generation of journalists who began working in NY & DC at a time when both cities had already long-established gay newspapers (e.g. the Blade), but there was no WWW; organizations like GLAAD held many events (and not every event made the news, and even at newsworthy events not every speaker got quoted, and besides "publicly" doesn't necessarily mean from a podium in front of a huge audience with microphones and cameras).  By far the more logical conclusion is that he acknowledged it at a time when he wasn't yet as famous as he is now, and didn't make the newspapers, so now you can't find it.  BTW, regarding sunrise, you might enjoy reading about the resurgence of geocentrism, at least its advocates can quote a source for their side so maybe we should update Sunrise to note the controversy and speculation.TVC 15 (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is that I was in agreement with you that it is reasonable to report the widespread speculation of others in the article; one hopes to avoid 'friendly fire' incidents. But yes, there ought to be a source to trace the past public acknowledgment mentioned by the Blade in 2003. Remember the priority is verifiability not truth. And please take it from one who spends many leisure hours at Colindale or Kew that there are many sources which the tentacles of the World Wide Web have yet to enwrap. Oh and by the way, this one was from my collection. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Laurence Brahm
I would like to report a very libelous and untrue paragraph posted on my wikipedia page: Lawrence Brahm. The last paragraph on the page was literally take directly from a blogger, Woser, who has never met me but has a personal vendetta against me. Nothing is true in this paragraph. I have worked hard to create cultural heritage hotels, build schools and medical clinics, and employ the disabled. I would like to challenge this paragraph and take it off the site. Could you please let me know how to proceed?

Best, Laurence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencebrahm (talk • contribs) 09:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Removed as a violation of WP:BLPSPS, it was sourced only to an anonymous blog. January  ( talk ) 10:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wolfhart Willimczik
Please see Talk:Wolfhart Willimczik. I'm not new to wikipedia, but this is the first time I'm arguing for someone who may be more notorious than notable. I decided to do this after looking up Inventionland on the web and here, and finding almost no mention of the problems. I recently almost fell for an invention scam (notice, I'm careful with my wording), and believe its important to spell out the 'controversy' - or at least questions that should arise, when discussing this type of people and companies. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: I looked up inventionland and found that they reverted everything I wrote, using a one time user! פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the page in question because it made serious charges with weak sources. We are familiar with Wolfhart, and commons:Category:Wolfhart pumps, who has a long history of editing Wikipedia to promote his projects. However the minimum threshold for calling someone a fraud, absent a conviction, is fairly high. If the subject is truly notorious there would have been a number of critical pieces written about him. I don't see the evidence. Before recreating the article, please make sure that you have at least two solid sources, like mainstream newspapers or news magazines, which directly support your assertions.    Will Beback    talk    11:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Barbara Moore (yet another 1992 playmate)
I'm happy with the result above for Tanya Beyer, and also with that for Stephanie Adams (also discussed above). But I'm puzzled by (in escalating order):
 * Barbara Moore (model) (of whom I had never heard until I edited this template), which says no more than (actually rather less than) what's here in the list of "playmates"
 * the unsourced tittle-tattle previously removed from it and dumped onto its talk page
 * Articles for deletion/Barbara Moore (model) (as recent as this year)
 * the contrast between (a) this AfD and (b) the summary disposal of Tanya Beyer

So what am I requesting? Nothing in particular. We read above: This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons. Food for discussion among the disinterestedly interested. My own suggestion is that the article should be turned into a redirect; but as a non-expert on playmates I may be missing some especial noteworthiness (not apparent to me from the AfD votes). -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You can be WP:BOLD as redirect it if you think that would be best. If someone reverts, then discuss the situation with them.  Tell us how it goes here, if you want. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fritzl case
As I understand it, it's wikipedia policy to protect the names of living victims of crimes, particularly sex crimes.

In the Strauss Kahn sexual assault case, we went to extraordinary measures to protect the identity of the accuser, but in the Fritzl case we not only list the direct victims, but the entire family tree of the victims, and even their current relationship status?

It would seem that this article needs a major rewrite to come in line with BLP policy, but I wanted to post here before doing that.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason for not disclosing the victim's name in the DSK case was because of journalistic custom in the U.S. and because reliable sources were not disclosing her name initially. Seems like the policy that best applies in the Fritzl case (which took place in Austria, not the U.S.), is WP:BLPNAME. As far as I can tell, here, the names of the children were reported in reliable sources. Nonetheless, I'm not sure that mentioning their names "adds significant value" (quote from policy) to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no problem in naming the direct victims as they changed their legal name some time ago but I do agree with the rest, like the name of his sister-in-law.TMCk (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Cat Stevens
2-3 editors established a content fork for a section of the Cat Stevens article dealing with the controversy related to the musician's comments regarding book The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. The content fork was started under the entry Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie. I would argue that the content fork is unnecessary, as it neither provides "undue weight'' nor does it overwhelm the rest of the main entry. Another editor disagrees, claiming that it does.  Other entries on controversial incidents, such as the feud between Gore Vidal and he late William F. Buckley Jr. mention the incident in detail, without an extra content fork.  Is there a clear WP policy for what a content fork is justified and under what conditions?Jemiljan (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Try redirecting it, and if you are reverted, take it to WP:AFD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Oh, and if AFD says it should be an article, then it should be an article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it not common practice, not to mention common courtesy, for the other participants in a discussion to be notified that something has been posted here when it is already under discussion on the appropriate talk page? Jemiljan suggested that a fork that was created by consensus in 2007 (ending a good deal of disagreement)  be merged back into the main article, and this is being discussed again at Talk:Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie.  He did not notify me, or anyone else as far as I know, that he brought this to this noticeboard, and I only know about it because someone else saw it here and commented on it.  I can guarantee that it will be reverted if he goes ahead and redirects this long-standing consensus article, without support, and I think it would be better to allow the discussion to take its course.  But I also mentioned AfD at the beginning of the discussion, and he did not reply to that. Tvoz / talk 04:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Murder of James Craig Anderson
Both Murder of James Craig Anderson and Deryl Dedmon describe the the recent violent death of James Craig Anderson for which teenager Deryl Dedmon has been charged with (but not yet tried for) capital murder. As per WP:CRIME, WP:BLP1E, and WP:NPF, I think both articles have serious issues, but I am not really sure of my ground here, so I would appreciate advice and/or help.  Sharktopus  talk 02:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Update, I filed AfDs on both articles; both are already contested.   Sharktopus  talk  03:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the crime is notable so that article should stay but the article about the accused should be deleted. I am not sure the relevance of mentioning that the accused is a "teenager" since at 18 he is legally an adult everywhere in the U.S. and pretty much every country I'm aware of.  I don't think his teenage status has any relevance to the BLP issues.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cullen, for taking a look at this and for clarifying that the age issue is irrelevant. The death of James Craig Anderson was a horrible thing, but most of its "newsworthiness" comes from prejudicial leaks about the suspect, and I don't think that using the word "allegedly" multiple times really undoes that. I also question the WP:WEIGHT being given to one particular source for multiple different racist remarks allegedly made by the suspect and all put verbatim into the article enclosed in quotation marks, often with citations listing other articles that did not report these comments. I tried to make some repairs on article POV but my changes were mass reverted.   Sharktopus  talk  12:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ally McCoist
This autobiography page has been tampered with in the text written which states "Even though he has stated many times that his first love is Celtic and would have preferred to sign for them, he signed for and is currently manager of Rangers."

Ally McCoist supported Rangers as a child and never ever supported Celtic. This is a lie which has been created by a Celtic fan and is untruthful. Please remove the offending text as this is not humorous!

The page link is Ally_McCoist. This whole page has been tampered with including a text comment about McCoist in 1987 being charged by the courts. This is untrue and the whole page needs to be reviewed or edited to the truth before being locked! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.102.242 (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked the reference given for the 1987 conviction, and it is accurate. There were also reports on the previous two days about the trial. I can't be sure that you're right about McCoist's allegiance being to Rangers but what I have seen tends to agree with you. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi‎
Given the current situation some eyes on this will be useful. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Sutcliffe
Looks like this stub has been vandalized, to the point of being libelous. I have not checked each link, but Reference 1 does not in fact declare (as stated in the wiki stub) that he is the most "un liked" man in a city/region of four million people. The entire first paragraph is full of such statements with references next to them.

I am unfamiliar with the man or the issues, but this article cannot be considered neutral as it is written.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.54.188 (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Removed the "most unliked" bit as vandalism and did some very minor tweaking. It's pretty much an attack piece still that could use some help.  Definitely some controversy around the man, but I think a lot of what's in the article is fairly typical for anyone that's running a large city.  Oddly enough, you can't keep everyone happy all the time.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Eyes and revision needed at John Searl
I understand how many on Wikipedia may displike John Searl (he claims to have invented a free energy device) the current state of his biography is not acceptable.

Completely based on primary sources, the article goes on to describe what the subject "claims" and later to state as fact what his opponents posted on the Internet.

There's also what's seems to be a cherry picked factoid about a legal case.

If we're to have a bio about this man, it should be cleaned up. --damiens.rf 20:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Rebecca Watson
The last edits to the Rebecca Watson page included references to white female privilege, and that material has been edited out of the text as of this writing. The material was cited, and cross referenced to several sources.

That is unethical and inaccurate, because many blog posters and blog owners called it such, and white female privilege is a valid construct.

I expect that this revision will continue, and I hope you note the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.8.147 (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Darragh MacAnthony
This is a request for more eyes as much as anything. In the past the article has been edited in partisan manner by both disgruntled former customers of MacAnthony's property business, and accounts that appear to be PR-related, seeking to present MacAnthony in a flattering light. Everything went quiet for a few months earlier in the year, after I removed a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced material, but the same issues are now flaring up again with another SPA,. I appear to be more or less the only editor to have the article watchlisted, so more eyes would be welcome, as would further input. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oldelpaso Thanks for the intervention again but although I have edited the page in the past I am not A disgruntled former customer and have never been a customer of Macanthony's failed property empire. I am an IT professional who became aware then outraged at what MacAnthony and his machine were doing to those vulnerable victims and how he was threatening them with UK lawyers and manipulating the web to try and prevent them having a voice, using any means he could employ to kill the voice.HuttonIT (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Skarsgård
In the intro paragraph, he's referred to as a closet homosexual, which is speculative. And rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.99.40 (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was removed by someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Marcotte
The wp:blp article on Amanda Marcotte seems overly contentious. There seems to be more information on her mistakes then Amanda Marcotte. Should I do anything? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Add positive reliably sourced claims is what WP:NPOV suggests. Collect (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While the article does focus on her "controversies" -- and it isn't a holistic picture of her life. It does appear to be an accurate picture of the parts of her life as they are covered in reliable sources as required by WP:Verify.


 * I've tried to find some additional "positive" things to include from reliable sources but I'm not having much luck. I was able to add this to the lead:Time magazine described her as "an outspoken voice of the left."


 * But the challenge is that the Reliable Sources have covered her critics and their comments -- and not her supporters. Even when Marcotte herself writes about her biggest controversy -- she links to many RS that have negative things to say about her (or quote her critics) -- but her only link to something that supports her is a blog post that quotes other blogs. Nothing that is usable on Wikipedia.


 * Also, the nature of the beast is that Reliable Sources are much more likely to cover bloggers' posts that blow-up ... than their posts that are lavished with praise.
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think anything included in the article is contentious. I imagine even Marcotte would agree that everything there is both WP:Verifiable and true. (As in: verifiable and true that she was criticized -- not that the criticism was necessarily valid.)


 * Despite what some here have said, the problem isn't the lack of sources, it's the editors who have used the page as a soapbox in the past. The article was much worse before I attacked it with a machete in the past.  It's not the lack of sources, it is that the editors there haven't been willing to do the legwork to find the sources. Gamaliel (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article cites reliable sources (including Marcotte herself) that describe people criticizing her for things that she published. Everyone agrees that she wrote/published these things -- and that she was then criticized. So the WP article isn't making any contentious claims.


 * I think the issue is that when one reads the article it appears to violate WP:Weight -- because it focuses almost exclusively on her controversies. So the solution, as User:Collect pointed out above, is to find positive reliable sourced statements to include.


 * But I think we're likely to find that the article does at least come close to reflecting the WP:Weight of the information found in reliable sources. While still giving an unbalanced picture of her life as a whole -- but given WP policies of WP:Verify and WP:NOR there really isn't any way to fix that.
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ezequiel Lavezzi
Unsourced changes in club affiliation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.188.155.194 (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geetanjali Nagpal
I just started this AFD, and people who are involved in BLP issues may be interested. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Lindi St Clair
The info is not 100% correct. I would like to correct it. Please will someone who edits the site contact me in this regard. Also, I'd like to add better references and some pics. Thanks. Lindi St.Clair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindistclair (talk • contribs) 01:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest corrections in detail on the article's talk page. Provide detailed references from reliable, independent sources backing up the changes you suggest.  You can upload photos to Wikimedia Commons if you own the copyright and agree to release them under a creative commons license.  You were right to come here to discuss this rather than editing the article yourself.  Feel free to ask questions on my talk page, and there are many other editors here who will help too.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, what Cullen says - but also hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. As you can imagine, we have to be a bit careful about people claiming to be the subject of an article trying to take it over - but that isn't what you seem to be doing anyway. We do need to be able to verify anything you want changed from outside sources (unless there is something already in the article that isn't properly sourced in the first place - I took a quick look and it looks reasonably sourced, though we prefer not to use tabloid newspapers for contentious material - if there is anything that is questionable, and not properly sourced, it shouldn't be in the article anyway). And yes, if you have a photograph of yourself you can release under the appropriate copyright conditions, it would be most welcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Dating Guy
Input is needed at  RfC here regarding possible defamation issues. --Noleander (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Wall
The biography page on Aaron_Wall seems to be written in a self promoting tone. There is not much secondary information on him and it looks like the primary purpose is profile like purpose to advertise his website and the him. Does this even belong here? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that he is not really a notable person and question whether he merits a Wiki article. The tone is not too bad, IMHO. --76.76.226.184 (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've nominated it for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Supported deletion on appropriate page. --BweeB (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edward E. Lehman
The policy states poorly sourced contentious material may be removed. One section, title "Legal Case Against Edward E. Lehman", should be removed. This has become an edit war over potentially defamatory material. Although the reference (13) appears to be strong, since an article was printed on the reuters website, a closer look at the article will show a statement "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release". The press release was an article by PR Newswire, which is a pay service.

Legal cases should be sourced to a database containing case material, not pay service news feeds. Please remove the section. Edward Lehman's business is affected by this post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willkate2011 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Although you may have a conflict, without looking for better sources, I have removed the section. You're correct that it's a press release, and it's from a paid service, AND it appears to have been released by the opposing party. Finally, it's a copyright violation because much of it was verbatim copied into the article. To insert this material will require high quality sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Removed SPS claims, and the commercial spam external links. Also some PUFF, but I am unconvinced the person meets notability requirements in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Lehman, Lee & Xu
The policy states poorly sourced contentious material may be removed. One section, title "Alleged Fraud" specifically states details regarding a case. Although one source shows information regarding a case which was filed, there are no details which resemble what has been written in said section. Specifically, the section states that the writer discovered Edward Lehman is not an attorney. The school Edward Lehman graduated from has his picture telling about his opening of a non-profit legal aid center in China, features him in a picture with George Bush, and states that he is a lawyer. The second source is not a publicly available source and thus does not prove the content of the post.

Although what is said in court cannot be consider defamatory, there is no source which proves anything written in the post and it has become an edit war over potentially defamatory material. Please remove the section as it directly influences the business of Lehman, Lee & Xu. It is part of a number of attacks against Mr. Lehman and his law firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willkate2011 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Will someone look - I doubt "notability" is met. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources, not the "truth"
Mugginsx keeps making references to the "truth" and lies, going so far as to suggest that we should blacklist reputable, reliable sources to push his paralegal agenda. This is quite alarming. I would like to remind the community, that reliable sourcing, not some subjective conception of the WP:TRUTH should prevail. elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 17:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A complete and utter untruth - and in an inappropriate format. Further, according to this editors "Contribs". I cannot find where we have ever been engaged on the same articles. Mugginsx (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you going to turn this vague and unverifiable complaint into a proper report by telling us at least which article you are talking about, or are you too afraid that that could turn into a boomerang? Hans Adler 12:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would like to see where I allegedly made those statements myself. Please produce these statements for myself and Adler. If this editor cannot produce them I will asked that he or she either retract them or seek to get her warned or blocked. I see on your Talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:La_goutte_de_pluie where you have been warned by Administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and  User:Off2riorob and there was also a comment made by User talk:Jimbo Wales.     Mugginsx (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I also see that your other alleged bad conduct is apparently the subject here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/La_goutte_de_pluie#Continuing_Bad_Conduct_Complaint AND HERE: La goutte de pluie's personal agenda Since you now claim on your talk page that you were commenting to a discussion that you didn't realized was settled by all parties and archived some time ago, I don't really expect you to do the right thing and retract even shown that no remark anything like that was ever said by me.  I showed you that I never made that statement but apparently you do not care.  Then again, I don't think many people will care much about these comments either way. Mugginsx (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Has User:La goutte de pluie perhaps gotten confused with almost the exact same discussion here last week: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive130. As discussed there, when people are claiming something is or is not defamatory, and there is no consensus, the exact issue with article name and diffs should be brought here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm closing this, as the report has remained unsubstantiated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Content for BLP's?
Can others editors please help by directing me to policy pages on content for BLP's, particularly BPL's of celebrities? I have been editing a few BPL's lately and I find that some of these articles read more like magazine features than an encyclopedia. Details about their dogs, their diet, their homes, all the people they ever dated, etc., etc. I am sure this type of content has been discussed before on Wiki and I would like to see what, if any, conclusions have been drawn and any policies that apply. Many thanks. --BweeB (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Celebrat BLPs are like the contents of their pets litter tray. John lilburne (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Same as for any other bio: WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT etc... – ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, same as for any other bio. If you have a POV that will get support, ignore WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT etc. Irrelevant claims regarding ethnicity will win you a few supporters if the bio is of a 'good guy', and if the person in question has just been sent down for clubbing his wife and children to death with a five-iron, be sure to mention his golf handicap, the fact that he once smoked weed as a kid, and that someone he met ten years ago thinks that he is probably an atheist... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicolas Berggruen
A single purpose account has been edit warring over the article on Nicolas Berggruen (currently protected), he's trying to add unsourced or poorly sourced information to it. I've attempted to explain things to him, and am sorely tempted to block him based on his latest comments, but thought I'd get some more eyes on the situation first. Much of my explanation of this issues can be found on the user's talk page. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * User has now stated he's leaving for Japan and will not be commenting until December. Crisis over ;)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Krzysztof Malek
In this article, the statement "student of Regina Horowitz" is without reference and is unverifiable. Please make a note of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGW2011 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The stuff about Makarov is probably a more serious concern, BLP wise (even though the article isn't about Makarov).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy - ongoing problem
Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy is a controversial, showy Indian politician and millionaire, now with his own political party named after his dad. He has been the target for a long time of accusations of corruption, which are now breaking out into major government investigations and raids by the Indian equivalent of the FBI. Some of the stuff being added is solidly sourced; but lots is not, and we've got an ongoing pattern of edits pro- and anti-Jagan (as he is called) by s.p.a.s and new editors. I'd like a couple of fresh sets of eyes on this article and the one about his late father Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy, during whose term as Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Jagan is supposed to have made his illicit millions. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

fatima whitbread
Fatima is a woman. The presnt article refers to her several times as "it" instead of "she". Once it refers to her as "he". This surely needs correction. It is wrong and also offensive. I pat money to Wikipedia each year and expect better of those who compose articles!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.187.39.70 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This one-off incident of vandalism had already been fixed by another editor before you posted the above. You are welcome to fix such vandalism yourself just by clicking "Edit" and making the necessary changes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)