Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive132

False accusation of rape
Five different times in less than eleven (11) hours Roscelese has removed the same material placed by two different editors. She is claiming the WP:BLP exception -- but even after being asked on the talk page she won't explain how she thinks BLP is being violated. Or what language has been "spun".

Another editor (not me), placed an edit warring message on her talk page -- but she just deleted it.

Now I'm not attached to the disputed material remaining in the article. I just want everyone to WP:AGF and have a WP:CIVIL discussion on the talk page on what would best serve the article. But her posting to the discussion page she titled Lame attempts to make false accusations look more prevalent than they are and then went on to say that my attempts to spin these stories also stands out as particularly shameful. But she doesn't at all say how BLP is being violated.

As I've said on the talk page, I have no intention of spinning anything -- I'm trying to do my best to improve the article and an important part of that is doing my best to follow WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

NOTE: I'm extremely open to have my edits changed or removed -- but she is doing it without explaining why and instead just waves around WP:BLP. But (as you'll see below) many of her reverts cannot possible fall under WP:BLP

Here are the diffs of her reverts (I've included the date/time and her comment -- as well as a summary of what was changed):
 * On:09:15, September 2, 2011 COMMENT: rv per BLP, etc.
 * Reverted seven examples, all of which had supporting citations from reliable sources, and several were drawn from these existing WP articles:: Neil Hamilton,  Lesley Susan Molseed,Michael Flatley,Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson
 * Reverted seven SEE ALSO links including: False accusations, List of miscarriage of justice cases, Day care sex abuse hysteria, Hungry for Monsters
 * ON:09:10,September 2, 2011 COMMENT:  rv per BLP, etc.. (TW)
 * Reverted seven examples, all of which had supporting citations from reliable sources, and several were drawn from these existing WP articles:: Neil Hamilton,  Lesley Susan Molseed,Michael Flatley,Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson
 * Reverted seven SEE ALSO links including: False accusations, List of miscarriage of justice cases, Day care sex abuse hysteria, Hungry for Monsters
 * ON:08:44, September 2, 2011 COMMENT: rv per BLP, etc.. (TW)
 * Reverted ten examples, all of which had supporting citations from reliable sources, and several were drawn from these existing WP articles: Neil Hamilton, Lesley Susan Molseed,Michael Flatley, Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson James Calvin Tillman
 * Reverted seven SEE ALSO links including: False accusations, List of miscarriage of justice cases, Day care sex abuse hysteria, Hungry for Monsters
 * ON:23:25,September 1, 2011 COMMENT:See Also: redundant, misplaced, and just wrong
 * Reverted seven SEE ALSO links including: False accusations, List of miscarriage of justice cases, Day care sex abuse hysteria, Hungry for Monsters
 * ON:23:23, September 1, 2011 COMMENT: rv per BLP, etc. - see talk page
 * Reverted eleven examples, all of which had supporting citations from reliable sources, and several were drawn from these existing WP articles: Neil Hamilton, Lesley Susan Molseed,Michael Flatley, James Calvin Tillman,Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson, Laurel Rose Willson (who is dead)
 * ON:22:26,September 1, 2011 COMMENT: how has this been here for so long without my noticing?? this is incredibly inappropriate as a summary of the article given that the studies referred to in the article find that it is not particularly common
 * ON:22:24, September 1, 2011 COMMENT: rmv a) flagrant BLP, NPOV vios - you must be joking! b) other things that are not false accusations of rape c) stuff that might belong in False allegation of child sexual abuse d) EL: Innocence Project has its own page e) too-detailed see also
 * Reverted six examples, all of which had supporting citations from reliable sources, and several were drawn from these existing WP articles: Neil Hamilton, Lesley Susan Molseed,Michael Flatley, James Calvin Tillman,Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson,Laurel Rose Willson (who is dead)
 * Reverted nine SEE ALSO links including: False accusations, List of miscarriage of justice cases, Day care sex abuse hysteria, Hungry for Monsters

SUMMARY: Five different times in less than eleven (11) hours Roscelese has removed the same material placed by two different editors. She is claiming the WP:BLP exception -- but even after being asked on the talk page she won't explain how she thinks BLP is being violated. ALSO: Five different times she removed the following links under See Also: False accusations, List of miscarriage of justice cases, Day care sex abuse hysteria,Hungry for Monsters  -- How can the placement of these links under See Also possibly be a WP:BLP violation?

REQUEST: I would like advice (and help) on how to handle this situation (both now and in the future) and I'd like more eyes on the article. These eyes certainly don't have to agree with me -- I'd actually welcome having explained to me how and why they see a better way. If there are BLP violations I'd love to have them pointed out and explained to me. I just find it hard to believe that *everything* she has reverted 5 times is a BLP violation. Thanks. Hoping To Help (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked into the particular reverts yet, but I have to say that a list of people who are alleged to have falsely accused someone of raping them feels like a BLP nightmare, especially in cases where they or the event have not been deemed notable enough to have articles. - Bilby (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Why do we have articles like this anyway? Determining whether someone "falsely" accused someone of rape sounds like an incredible quagmire and a constant source of controversy, both in the real world and the Wikipedia world. My immediate reaction to removal of accusations would be "good". My reaction to deletion of the article would be "great".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect that much of the material would indeed fail WP:BLP especially to the extent that the accusations are thus perpetuated about innocent people. Collect (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Saying you "suspect much of the material would indeed fail" BLP isn't helpful. Could you point out which specific parts you believe do fail?


 * Also, could you point out any examples from the edits where you believe someone is being wrongly accused of a making a false accusation?


 * In all the examples in the article either they recanted their testimony, or a court found that the person accused of the sexual assault was innocent (not just "not guilty"). And in many cases on top of all that the accuser was found guilty of the crime of perverting justice and sentenced to jail. But again if there is any *specific* example that you think violates WP:BLP I'd love to get your feedback on it.
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't let HTH overwhelm you with walls of text. Among the content he's been trying to add are instances where the only source for the accusation being false is the accused person (because they're totally a reliable source that justifies libeling their accuser on Wikipedia), and where the victim was pressured to recant but the defendant says that the victim's story was true. He's also trying to add the accuser in the Dominic Strauss-Kahn case to the list. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Roselene, for the most part I have no idea what you're referring to -- or why you object to each of the seven examples you kept removing. Please be specific:
 * In your last revert you deleted seven different examples. How specifically does each one violateWP:BLP?
 * Which one of those do you mean by: "only source for the accusation being false is the accused person"?  If that applies to any of the examples then I would love for you to point it out so I can apologies for posting it.
 * Which example from your last revert are you referring to when you say: "where the victim was pressured to recant but the defendant says that the victim's story was true."
 * When you reference the Dominic Strauss-Kahn case you're being misleading. The example given in the article was only about the housekeepers false claim that she was gang raped by soldiers in her native country. She has admitted this was not true, and the prosecutors have filed papers with the court swearing to this under oath. But most importantly, multiple Reliable Sources (such as the New York Times) report it. As does Wikipedia in the New York v. Strauss-Kahn article. This example was supported with three Reliable Sources as cites (and many more exist) ... That said I knew this one would be controversial and I'm more than happy to have  a WP:Civil discussion about whether it should be included.
 * And this stills leaves at least four other examples that you repeatedly reverted without explaining how you believe they violate WP:BLP
 * And I'm really curious how how having these links under See Also is a WP:BLP violation:
 * False accusations,
 * List of miscarriage of justice cases,
 * Day care sex abuse hysteria,
 * Hungry for Monsters
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If the article is to exist, it should certainly not be listing cases that fall into the huge middle ground where neither side manages to prove the truth of their claims, so the defendant gets off with the benefit of the doubt. It might be appropriate to include cases where the accusations have been proven false in some fashion - e.g. the accuser has been convicted of perjury, but I don't know if that leaves enough material to justify an article. --GenericBob (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly there needs some discussion about such a contentious article and adding any living peoples names to it as claimed examples. I would suggest it will need extreme care to comply with BLP. I myself would start with the suggestion that no person should be included unless they have been legally charged with false accusations. Please keep the disputed content out of the article until there is agreement as to what to include, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not that I disagree with the concept, but I tend to agree with Bob that the article wouldn't have much left in it. Perjury charges (and convictions) are rare, particularly for this kind of thing. What about nominating the article for deletion and eliminating the BLP problems along with it?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion that no list should be included. Sure, there are notable cases of false accusations of rape. That can be much better handled with a category though. Wrongful conviction doesn't include a laundry list of wrongful convictions. Instead, it describes the general circumstances behind wrongful convictions, why they happen, what steps are taken to remedy them after the fact, etc. Category:Overturned convictions handles the individual cases. I don't see why that couldn't be done here. NW ( Talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * NW, I completely agree that it would be good to revamp the False accusation of rape article so that it deals with: "the general circumstances behind wrongful convictions, why they happen, what steps are taken to remedy them after the fact, etc." ... That would be GREAT!! Currently none of that is in the body of the article.


 * The entire body of the article is composed of seven different top level sections each devoted exclusively to debating/presenting different studies on the prevalence of false rape accusations. The WHOLE article is devoted to debating statistics.  Which is made especially absurd by the last sentence of the lead which states:  "As a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown."
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  NW , as for your comparison to the Wrongful conviction article, that article doesn't list examples in the article partially because they've been moved to two external lists that the article links to:
 * List of miscarriage of justice cases, and
 * List of exonerated death row inmates


 * Additionally, in the See Also section the article links to 9 individual examples:
 * Troy Davis case
 * Vincent Simmons
 * Deventer murder case
 * Timothy Evans
 * Johnny Garrett
 * Chantal McCorkle
 * Teresa de Simone - The longest case of miscarriage of justice in British law.
 * Christy Walsh (Case)
 * West Memphis 3


 * Another good article to compare to is: Police misconduct. It lists/discusses notable cases by country right in the article . Additionally, the See Also section lists ten notable incidents and 25 individuals.


 * Also, a significant portion of the Frivolous lawsuit article is devoted to its example section. Additionally, four examples are listed in the See Also section


 * Hoping To Help (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible criteria for inclusion on the list

 * I agree that we need to be very careful about such a list. And I most certainly agree with GenericBob that we need to stay far away from the " huge middle ground where neither side manages to prove the truth of their claims."


 * I would propose four possible criteria:


 * 1) The accuser is convicted of perjury, or perverting the course of justice, or receives some other official government punishment for lying. (It's true that this is relatively rare in the U.S. but it is much more common in the U.K.)
 * 2) The accused is found/declared factually innocent by the government as in the Duke lacrosse case. NOT that they are just found "not guilty" during a regular criminal trial.
 * 3) The accuser admits they were wrong AND the police/prosecutors agree.
 * 4) The accused is unequivocally cleared by DNA evidence.
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope. Wikipedia isn't a court of law, and as such is unable to determine which (if any) of those criteria would be applicable. In any case, this is WP:SYNTHESIS - you are drawing together different criteria to create a list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As part of any/all of the above criteria I meant to include: as reported in reliable sources WP:RS. I'm not suggesting that we act as a court of law -- but really to just report what the the Reliable Sources are reporting. As Wikipedia already does for lots of lists ... including some very similar ones like these:
 * List of miscarriage of justice cases
 * Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country
 * List of murderers by number of victims
 * List of rampage killers
 * List of serial killers by country
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Each of the examples you give has a single criteria for inclusion: your proposed list has four, which you have put together yourself - a synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I always thought it would be better to divide it up and have different sections for different types. So that would solve the synth problem if there really is one. I actually think that there is one over arching criteria: that the Reliable Sources portray it as a fact that the accusation is untrue.


 * Also, it isn't clear to me that all of those lists have a single criteria. Can you tell me what the criteria is for inclusion on the list: Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country ??


 * And List_of_rampage_killers explicitly has three possible criteria for making it onto the list.
 * And what do you know ... List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases also has three different possible ways to make it onto the list.


 * Hoping To Help (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about having criteria for inclusion. But if reliable sources say a person was "falsely accused of rape" how can we exclude it? – Lionel (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. After all, isn't that our standard everywhere else? :-) Hoping To Help (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez
For many months Hugo Chávez has been tagged as having BLP problems. It is still this way and very few Wikipedians have been involved in the discussion. It is time to bring the larger community into it. See Talk:Hugo_Chávez WhisperToMe (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Frank Fahey
Hi all, The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter related to the article Frank Fahey suggesting that a good review is needed for BLP concerns, especially in the section Frank Fahey. Could some of you take a look at it to make sure that the content complies with your BLP policy, especially in terms of weight and quality of sourcing? Thanks. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm going to take a look. --FormerIP (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove all the juicy bits which seem quite "undue" - if FIP does not do it, I will. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've only looked at the "Lost at Sea" section. Nothing in there look juicy or undue. It all seems factually correct. There are dead links and one source is biased (a rival political party), but these could be replaced with reliable sources.

The article omits to mention some seemingly important facts. Fahey was criticised in an ombudsman's report. This is mentioned, but the fact that the report was later rejected by a parliamentary committee is not mentioned. At the same time, it is clear that this was a controversial decision for many, including members of Fahey's own party, and it would be wrong (IMO) for our article to give the impression that it wipes the slate clean. The article should also mention that Fahey denies the allegations against him and has had support from civil servants in this regard.

There's an allegation of assault, which I'm not sure about. It is verifiable that the allegation was made. On the other hand, it was made by a rival politician and there are no details (AFAICT) as to what the assault entailed. I think this should go.

I think dealing with this section needs some care, so it would be good if other editors would join in. --FormerIP (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've tried my best to fix the Lost at Sea section but, finding myself out-of-depth with the article as a whole, I've posted here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland--FormerIP (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The article now meets WP:BLP in that all potentially contentious material is reliably sourced and no self-published or partisan sources are used. Sources also now link to live web pages so they can be easily checked. I've done a general tidy of the contents as well.

I've removed three allegations from the article that I felt were WP:UNDUE. Firstly an allegation of assault that seemed unclear and unproven. Secondly, a paragraph under "controversies" about Fahey advising young people to buy houses. It is verifiable that he did this, but it is not clear that it has been widely regarded as controversial. Thirdly, criticism that he put pressure on a planning body that was sourced to the website of a rival political party and seemed like routine knockabout rather than serious controversy. I've retained a section titled "Investments and property" which seems okay to me. But it is possible that an editor with more knowledge of Irish politics might find that this also fails WP:UNDUE.

Lost at Sea appears to be a scheme that caused significant controversy and it is right, IMO, that it should be covered in the article.

I do not know enough about Irish politics to be sure that the article as a whole satisfies WP:NPOV. It seems to focus a lot on controversies related to the subject. But I'm not able to say whether or not that is inappropriate. Maybe other material could be added so that the article is more balanced, but I don't know what this material might be. --FormerIP (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Judy Chu
There seems to be an effort to add a disparaging "controversy" section to this politician's biography. Here is an example of what keeps getting added. As you can see, there's a number of problems with this, the biggest of which is that the entire thing is sourced to a single opinion piece. Even if it were properly sourced, the tone is clearly not neutral and it's basically relying on a form of WP:SYNTH to try to tie two completely unrelated events in her career together to give the appearance of hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if the synthesis came from someone's editorial opinion, it's still synthesis. Take a look, it would be great to get some more opinions on the matter. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't appear to be a WP:SYNTH. I'm curious as to what the "number of problems with this" are. There's no requirement that it be sourced to more than one source, as far as I can tell. It is also not "disparaging" but points out her positions on racial preferences/affirmative action.


 * I might agree that the tone isn't neutral -- but User:Loonymonkey hasn't pointed to any language that is problematic. The Wall Street Journal piece did make an issue of the hypocrisy! The paragraph in question mentions Judy Chu's political positions and ran in the Wall Street Journal Opinion section. Here's what I wrote in the talk page.

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." This Judy Chu mention doesn't seem to run afoul. Here's another example: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." I suggest we go to arbitration again or wait for an administrator to weigh in.


 * Now, in fairness, I did add the word "opinion" piece first. I'd love to get admins weighing in on this. Both me and presumably another user believe it doesn't run afoul of rules. I'm left scratching my head as to why its a synthesis when the most read newspaper in the country ran a piece on it.Starbucksian (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I also thought I would point out this section from WP:RS. " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Note the language of that rule: "rarely reliable." It doesn't say "never reliable." The opinion piece in question does cite Chu's votes and positions on racial preferences/affirmative action and given that it ran in the largest circulation newspaper in the United States, there's little reason to doubt its veracity, however much one might dislike the opinion piece's opinion.Starbucksian (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Op-ed pieces are used for the opinion of their author, not (as you're trying to do here) for statements of fact. You're splitting hairs on the "rarely" vs. "never" thing, but why would this be one of the rare instances when it is acceptable?  This is a BLP, the requirements for sourcing are much more strict, not less.  If this were a truly notable biographical issue, you could easily find neutral sources for it.  But it's just one person's opinion (and not a particularly compelling one...it's hard to see what university admissions standards have to do with a law from 100 years ago that excluded one specific race of people from immigrating here).  It is absurdly undue weight to create a section in a biography that just repeats this person's disparaging opinion.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The opinion ran in the most well-read newspaper in the entire country. You didn't read my statement? Did you? "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..." Well, let's add that that was the author's opinion, if you wish. You can absolutely use opinion pieces for facts if they are in reputable sources. I'd like an admin to weigh in here, rather to have you continue edit warring and section blanking. Starbucksian (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter where the opinion is, it's still only an opinion, and can only be quoted with "X, writing in Y, said that...". The main problem is that of WP:UNDUE, especially if you're adding negative material.  One person's opinion is unlikely to fulfil that policy - imagine if we included every negative opinion that any pundit had published about any politician? Black Kite (t) (c) 06:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

mark williams radio host
goethan insists on reposting libelous, false stories about a supposedly racist letter written by me, and relying on a forger in Florida as a source. I have corrected, notified, asked and threatened but it continues. This false allegation turned up in a job interview. My next step is to launch a libel action against this joke of a website and track down that vandal for personal service — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.38.92 (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean Mark Williams (radio host)? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 76.114.38.92, are you Mark Williams? Also, please do not post legal threats on Wikipedia. WP:NLT.   Will Beback    talk    01:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure it's Williams. Read the post/rant on the talk page the IP left.  It's interesting.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 01:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * the new york daily news if contested should not imo be considered reliable - the disputed article - diff - its a very low quality source for contentious disputed content - are there other sources. Off2riorob (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, e.g., . Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks- that sfgate is also a very poor quality publication. The best there (or rather the only one I would add to a BLP) would be the msnbc.msn.com report - Off2riorob (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oddly, the MSNBC article you've linked to above says something quite different from the article. The article states:
 * Williams served as the spokesperson for the Tea Party Express until he was forced to step down amid controversy over a racially charged satirical letter posted on his blog and comments that he made to the media.
 * However the MSNBC account says that the National Tea Party Federation expelled Tea Party Express from their group, because they wouldn't force him to step down, and The New York Post article also only states that the Tea Party Express was expelled from the group, not that Williams was. That's not in keeping with the WP article, and seems to be a significant difference. - Bilby (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, but above I was linking these as sources supporting the existence of the satirical letter itself, which (after reviewing the various IP contributions) seemed to be the disputed point. If MSNBC and the SFGate blog are not enough, there is also CNN and TIME.
 * The fact that he stepped down as spokesperson for the Tea Party Express during this controversy (a few days after currently cited reference was published) does not appear to be in dispute; in any case it is supported by reliable non-tabloid sources such as the LA Times ("Tea Party Express spokesman resigns after racist blog post"), see also the current version of Tea Party Express.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * sfgate.com is the web portal for the San Francisco Chronicle. The SF Chronicle articles are reliable!
 * BUT the particular page cited here is NOT a San Francisco Chronicle. It is a "City Brights" page.
 * "Editor's note:This is an SFGate.com City Brights Blog. These blogs are not written or edited by SFGate or the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors are solely responsible for the content."
 * So THAT one is not reliable.
 * The New York Daily News is supposed to be a mainstream paper too. Usually we are supposed to count on national newspapers like these. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well - this sfgate report is an opinionated editorial/blog post? that I wouldn't add to a blp, as for the new your daily news - Daily News (New York) is a scandal-mongering - imo not to be trusted at all redtop that is worse that the English Sun newspaper for quality and trust-ability - and that is really sayin sum-thing. I wouldn't ever add that to a BLP. If you are relying on these for quality reports we are in the do-be-do-do. Off2riorob (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=68142 is NOT checked by the San Francisco Chronicle staff, so it is NOT a relaible source.
 * Some "newspaper blogs" are made by newspaper staff members and are editorially checked by the newspaper. This is NOT one of those ones.
 * Now as for "Daily News (New York) is a scandal-mongering - imo not to be trusted at all redtop that is worse that the English Sun newspaper for quality and trust-ability - and that is really sayin sum-thing." - Is this documented on BLP Noticeboard posts? Is there a consensus among Wikipedia editors that the Daily News does not have a sufficient fact checking operation (like one would expect from a typical American city newspaper)?
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The New York Daily is clearly a low quality redtop style publication - for anything contentious or disputed, on its own for any specific controversial claim it would clearly be insufficient support. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you stated your viewpoint. But where are the BLP noticeboard posts from people who agree with you?
 * If there is no such thing, then I suggest starting a BLP noticeboard thread about the NY Daily News itself, as see if we can come to a consensus on whether the NY Daily News is a reliable source.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you mean an RS/N discussion? The Daily News is good for facts, poor on gossip as a source.  And, always, "reliable" != "correct."  I think O2RR is pointing out that for contentious claims about a living person, the trend is to require strong sources - and it depends on the story as to whether the Daily News is "strong" or not. IMHO, in most cases it is fine.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats basically my position, I have been googling some results related to the publication and I find have been unduly tough on its reputation, and I have upgraded it somewhat from the returns from my search results and both your comments - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Goethean's stated opinion of the living person whose article his is involved in a dispute at does not suggest neutrality. "Yes, and also somewhat sobering that people apparently listen to this ignorant, racist blowhard" - User:Goethean|goethean 9:00 pm, 31 August 2011, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC+1) - Off2riorob (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I archived and tidied a bit of old and not useful comments, - lets try to wind the dispute in a bit - I gave the IP advice to move to WP:OTRS and a warning to stop personally attacking editors - if the WP:NPA behavior (or WP:NLT comments) continues revert and block is the way to go, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Goethean's stated opinion about the subject of the article suggests nothing about his ability to edit neutrally -- it just suggests that he holds an opinion, just as everyone does, expressed or not. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It does actually. Recent comments in arbitration identify such stated personal positions as being relevant conflicts of interest and users with such stated or apparent opinions should avoid editing such associated BLP articles. He, like all of us are requested, should keep his personal opinions about the living subjects of articles he is in dispute at to himself. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey Toobin
I think I'm watching this after seeing a report now in archive90. A new issue has arisen at the article: the "Personal life" section has been expanded to Personal life & Related Problems (the original text was "In 1986, Toobin married Amy McIntosh and together they have two children.") I have discussed the addition here and here. Probably some mention of the new topic (a love child) is appropriate, but the current wording is not. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed all but simple statement of fact per WP:UNDUE etc. Collect (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there any other sources for this claim of parenthood apart from the New York Daily News - [Baby drama! CNN star Jeffrey Toobin offered Casey Greenfield money for abortion: sources http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-05-09/gossip/27063907_1_dna-test-source-jeff-greenfield] - if not it seems a bit personally intrusive to me.He allegedly offered money for abortion according to "some of her fed up friends" and "according to one (unnamed) source"- its privacy invading scandal mongering and imo needs completely removing. Off2riorob (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several articles in the New York Daily News about this whole affair, all three from the Daily News are referenced (Particularly see not only the May 9, 2010 article but also the June 9, 2011 piece). The Daily Caller and New York Post have articles about it being Toobin's baby and the affair.  The rules on living people and this word "controversy" and the evidence standards are not being consistently applied.  For example, here are two posts that I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Ayres   Why is the word "controversy" allowed in these two cases but not in the Toobin case?  In the Lott case, sections 3.3 and 3.5 have none of the reputable journalistic sources shown for Toobin, and there is quite a bit of evidence provided by others that much material in those two sections are false.  In Toobin's case, he never denies that he is the father.  Why is it appropriate to mention only two of his three children and the mother of only two of the children and the marriage date, but not mention any of this information for the third child? Roberts1963 (talk) 08:08,  September 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just removed the entire "ethical issues" discussion, since there were no sources supporting the underlying claim -- put simply, there were no references cited for the point that a journalist reporting on a "sex scandal" has an ethical responsibility to disclose any marital infidelities of their own. Mostly because there aren't any. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The supporting sources from the New York Daily News, the Daily Caller, and Mediate were all referenced. These articles in real media outlets were reporting precisely on this ethical issue.  Have you read the stories in these journalistic sources?  Roberts1963 (talk) 12:58,  September 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have, and not one of them has any content regarding journalistic ethics, particularly along the lines you suggest. You disapprove of Toobin. We get that. But Wikipedia isn't your soapbox. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Take the first reference to the Daily Caller article: "yet the Democrats right now are going out there on TV just like Jeffrey Toobin who has been involved in his own sexual scandal."  How is this not on point?  You have also ended up removing the New York Times and Washington Times criticisms of Toobin's ethical lapses over his first book.  Why did you do that?  Those were not in contention before you removed them and you have given absolutely no reason for doing so. Roberts1963 (talk) 13:28,  September 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. You removed the content in question yourself, then came here to accuse me of doing it. And the Daily Caller includes general mudslinging about Toobin, without a word about journalistic ethics. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)FWIW, the above editor has been given a 3RR warning, and told to self-revert his last edits. Collect (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Santino Marella
IP users keep adding unsourced claims to this article about an auto accident the subject was supposedly engaged in. He's a pro wrestler, which means the article is already an unhappy mix of fact and fiction, and without citing a legit news source that says it's an actual, significant event (as opposed to a rumor or a scripted plotline) it shouldn't be in the article. Those of us who try and keep articles BLP-compliant shouldn't have to sort through the mostly unreliable sources on the field to prove or disprove uncited claims. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The accident was put in the lead (with a source). I removed it and reworded the lead, but only because at this point it's just a blip and it's misleading to say that he's not currently active. Also, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the body, not in the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange
An editor inserted the following reported quote from Assange in the article: "Well, they're informants, so if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." I reverted for various reasons. Another editor opened a discussion on the Talk page. All three of us have contributed to the discussion. I have now bowed out, at least in terms of interacting with the first editor, because of comments he made. At this point, I'm not saying the material belongs or doesn't, but it would be helpful if others would take a look at the issues involved given the nature of the quote.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The relevant section of policy here is surely WP:WELLKNOWN which allows disputed accusations to be mentioned, if they are sourced to a generally reliable publication. This one comes from journalists on The Guardian, a major world newspaper (and which was at the time in alliance with Julian Assange) and has been published in a mass publication paperback book, not to mention several other media organisations cited on the talk page reporting on the quote. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as the quote is reliably sourced to some place with no axe to grind, I see no problems with using it. I would not make it into a paragraph however. Collect (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see any reason not to include this. It seems to have been widely reported and citing WELLKNOWN is correct IMO. Also include any comment in response from Assange if one exists. --FormerIP (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

wendy neuss
Hello, the dob is incorrect. The year of her graduation from Penn is correct. If the date of birth was correct, she would have graduated college from upenn when she was 18! Her younger brother was born in 1957 and he was younger than she. I do not know her exact birth year, but it definitely is not 1958. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iristiberius (talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi - I removed the birth year - as disputed uncited personal detail. In my interpretation of wiki guidelines - she is not really notable. Off2riorob (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

mike piazza
piazza never tested positive steroids, nor did he ever admit to doing so to the new york times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.197.138 (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I have edited out the uncited statement which said that he did.  -- Jayron  32  03:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

SEO Consultants list
In light of Aaron Wall, I've been poking around on the issues surrounding search engine optimization and I'm finding a lot of spam on the issue. A publication within their industry acknowledges Wiki as a potential spamming target. http://www.searchenginejournal.com/how-to-link-spam-wikipedia/3240/ This list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Search_engine_optimization_consultants looks like a phone book of not so Wiki worthy notable WP:N rather than a category. Just about every one of them appears to be NOT notable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your concern may be well-placed. If you choose to nominate some of them for deletion, please consider following the recommendations at WP:BEFORE and describe your good faith efforts to find reliable sources in your nomination statement.  This will help maximize the chance of a collegial and productive debate, and minimize the potential for recriminations.  This is my suggestion as a fairly active participant at AfD.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Satoshi Kanazawa
A controversial scientist, who has upset a lot of social justice types, probably rightfully so. However they have come to Wikipedia and filled up his article with negative quotes from various blogs and slight to major misrepresentations of the issues (two thirds of the article are in sections devoted to criticism and accusations of racism/sexism). I do not have the time immediately to do a through review and it was egregiously bad so I took the drastic action of removing two sections dedicated to criticism of him (including things like a quote from a blog calling him 'the biggest idiot in science'). I have since been reverted by one of the users responsible in part for the negative WP:COATRACK, so I have brought it here for outside scrutiny. jorgenev 07:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wholesale deletion of that sort is inexcusably lazy. If you identify specific problems, then deal with them -- but you can hardly be surprised when someone reverts a deletion of more than half the article, especially when a good portion of the deleted material is not problematic.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What is inexcusable is the state of the article. Checking the history most of the content was added by SPA users and is in general rubbish. Any redeemable parts can be reintroduced with consensus. jorgenev 07:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Better to stick to discussing specific issues with article content than casting blanket assumptions of bad faith. aprock (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You think adding that a person is an 'unscientific bigot' sourced to a wordpress blog is good faith? jorgenev 08:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think addressing the problem of that source can be done without deleting the majority of the article. aprock (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am rewriting the article. I had thought that removing the hack-job would be a good first step but if you think accusations of 'unscientific bigotry', 'the biggest idiot in science', random length primary source quotes criticizing him, and demonstrably false statements are better than no article at all I guess it stays up until I have replacement text. jorgenev 08:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

(undent) I had a look at the article and cleaned up what's there. Happy to review your draft Jorgenev. --BweeB (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what you cleaned is the article with some of my revisions; I went on an editing spree at 2am last night, so it is a little messy, but I think far better than its state prior to my intervention. jorgenev 20:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky (businessman)
User:Deepdish7, who has a history of sockpuppetry and edit-warring at this article, has today made major changes to this BLP (diff of all changes made), including some that appear to run afoul of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It would be useful for someone with more knowledge of the subject to analyse these. On the talkpage he has claimed that the article has been "whitened" by someone with a COI on the subject. One thing he is definitely wrong about - he claims The Guardian is a tabloid paper, which it certainly is not - it is a clearly reliable source. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you deal with this sort of thing. There are some obvious things wrong with the article since Deepdish's changes. First, the lead, which was already fairly long, is now way too long. Second, some of the language is clearly inflammatory. Some examples:
 * In 2007, a Moscow court found Berezovsky guilty of massive embezzlement in absentia.
 * By 1994, Berezovsky had moved beyond dependence on mobster protection. He had forged a more potent alliance by paying for the publication of Boris Yeltsin's memoirs, thus gaining entrée to the inner circle around the grateful author/president. This court was populated with strange figures, such as the "hippie journalist" Valentin Yumashev, through whom Berezovsky obtained his entrée; Yeltsin's tennis coach, who ran a large criminal empire of his own from a Kremlin office; not to mention Alexander Korzhakov, for a while the powerful chief of Yeltsin's Praetorian guard who later reported that Berezovsky had asked him to kill a business rival. Korzhakov performed great services to history by his assiduous bugging of everyone's phones, leaking the tapes when it seemed useful, and by his forthcoming reminiscences once he had fallen from his master's graces.
 * The early '90s, when Berezovsky was getting under way, was the time of the great gang wars in Moscow, as rival criminal coalitions shot it out for control of key industries and businesses. Businessmen could only ward off extortion or worse by paying one or other criminal group for a "roof"--protection. On one side in the most important war stood the Chechen mafia, much feared for their ruthlessness, and impenetrable to outsiders. On the other were the "Slavic alliance," native Russian gangsters determined to fight off the Chechen threat. It appears that Berezovsky forged an alliance with the Chechen forces, who provided his roof, a connection that would have terrible consequences in years to come.


 * I suggest all of his changes be backed out and that any significant changes he wishes to make be proposed first on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I rolled it back as per your comment to a pre expansion position - this BLP is repeatedly edited to close to an attack page. 16:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your first rollback was better than your second, though. Debresser restored your first. I couldn't even figure out how far back you went with your second. Anyway, I think this provides a better starting place.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, editors more involved are more able to see the best version - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second guys, you do not have a right to roll back all my changes without a proper explanation. Let's discuss point by point, just rolling back everything is not appropriate Deepdish7 (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe a consensus was reached, both here and on the Talk page, that a rollback was required. As has been suggested, you should propose changes to the article on the article Talk page. It would probably be best if you did it incrementally (one at a time). Otherwise, any discussion is likely to become unfocused.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus was NOT reached because I was blocked when everything was done on the page. I did changes incrementally in around 50 posts. If you don't like something - then revert particular post instead of reverting everything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First, your view doesn't change the consensus. Second, maybe I'm missing something, but your block was in early August, so you could have - and still can - contribute to the discussion of your changes. If you're referring to changes that were made during your block and before your changes, so what? The consensus is what to do about what you did most recently.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but my view _does_ change the consensus. Yes my block was in August, after it expired I was busy, as again, I'm not being paid full-time to work on this page, as Kolokol1 I believe, for example. Now I'm very happy to participate in the discussion. If you do not like some of my edits - very welcome to delete them part by part. I will not object as far as they're at least somehow grounded. Not just deleting everything because you don't like what I wroteDeepdish7 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Glen Campbell party affiliation
This is another one of those if something is a fact it must be included, as opposed to whether it's a fact that's relevant to the article. An IP has put in a sentence about Campbell being a republican. For the purpose of this discussion, I will accept that it's accurate and reliably sourced, but, as I said on the article Talk page, what relevance does it have to Campbell? There's no context for it, e.g., he contributes to republican causes. It's just thrown in. I reverted and opened a topic on the Talk page, but once one other editor appears to have agreed with the IP, the IP put it back. I'm not going to war over this, and it may not grab people here (it's hardly as sensationalistic as some of the stuff in this forum), but I'd like other views on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a bit of a factoid but with such well known subjects and with a fairly detailed bio I thinks its fine to stay - harmless trivia... Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With a number of reliable sources, there is enough for even a moderately contentious claim - but this claim is not even particularly contentious. Collect (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm going to prevail on this, but whoever said anything about "contentious" (other than you here and on the Talk page)? I certainly didn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Contentious" is the specific term used in WP:BLP for determining a category of claim which must have strong reliable source basis. "John Doe plays the piano left-handed" is unlikely to be considered "contentious."  "John Doe escaped a conviction for murdering his wife" is a tad more likely to be considered "contentious." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ""John Doe plays the piano left-handed" would indeed be contentious. Left-handed and right-handed people normally play the piano in the same way. --FormerIP (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See  and .  There are, indeed, left-handed pianos, even.   Collect (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And, if I recall your statements elsewhere correctly, you believe that religious affiliation and sexual orientation are also contentious. So now we add political affiliation as well. There are many contentious topics, apparently.   Will Beback    talk    22:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear me! You appear like a bolt from the blue with a fairly blatant misapprehension of my positions as stated in many places.   We have at least eight sources, including the New Yiork Times available.  This is not exactly the same as a single interview printed ibn a gay publication, to be sure.  Nor is calling a person a "Republican" quite in the same area as asserting that the person belongs to some "extreme group" or another.    But I suppose you felt that any discussion O2RR and I were both in required some degree of 'boojumizing". Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As if you guys never show up at a thread where I'm involved...   Will Beback    talk    23:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - "boojum", nonsense word coined by... Lewis Carroll in The hunting of the snark - Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what the normal meaning of the word and as it's used by Wikipedia. As I have repeatedly said, the issue is not the source, but the relevance and context of the assertion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Will Beback - If your indenting is correct and your comment is in response to User;Collect - he just said above, " but this claim is not even particularly contentious." - which appears to state the opposite of what you are suggesting. Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No one thinks that religious affiliation and sexual orientation are contentious in all situations, in some situations they are the basis of a subjects notability. As Bb23 said in an edit conflict, it is not the details but, "but the relevance and context of the assertion" that creates the possibility of contentiousness. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that no one thinks that. Obviously some people here do.   Will Beback    talk    22:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the quote is right, but my issue is not contentiousness, just, as phrased, the assertion isn't useful to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * excuse. I agree as I said its a pretty harmless factoid. Better than, Campells favorite color is maroon, but not a lot. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I understood your initial comment above perfectly. Somehow, this discussion (above) has gone in another direction. Can't own articles, can't own topics, can't own anything. :-( ---Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, its a bit tangential indeed. You can own the benefits of your contributions to the project Bbb23, and thank you for yours. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The saga continues. Will someone drop in on that page and explain that reliably sourced (as in genuine reliable sources like major newspapers) non-contentious material requires a consensus for removal? Right now the argument is "well he also imitated Donald Duck, so this should not be in the BLP" sort of issue . I find it a tad tiring. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Salah (or Sallah) Soltan (or Sultan)
The article on Salah Soltan contains, as nearly its entire content, a selection of quotes translated by MEMRI. There is also the page Sallah Sultan on the same individual also containing the same quotes, added by the same Wikipedia user. There are now two BLPs on one person in which one user has filled with quotes without any secondary sources discussing the person in either of these supposed biographies of this person. Should either of these articles be allowed to continue to serve as a repository of MEMRI translations?  nableezy  - 16:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No comment on the content but one is enough - I redirected the one with the lowest google returns to Sallah Sultan - Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you believe that the translations are inaccurate, please cite a source to indicate this. On the other hand, if you believe that this individual is not notable enough or that there are too few mainstream sources which cite him (which may very well be the truth), than maybe this article should be deleted.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC))
 * As far as I can tell, his main claim to fame is making controversial, inflammatory remarks. I've nominated it for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with nableezy here. It doesn't matter whether the quote is inaccurate or not. If all we have is primary sources, then there's no evidence of relevance/significance of the quote. This is an important point because in a lot of cases we ended up with quote farm with a lot of OR quotes. For someone who is controversial it's easy to spin the article in one way or another. This is a frequent problem, e.g. with a bunch of Fox News commentators or some politicians. (In fact in some cases even with reliable secondary sources discussing the quote there are too many so we have to restrict to what's widely discussed.) Now if the person isn't notable the article should be deleted but regardless there's no excuse for an OR quote farm. P.S. I didn't quite realise what MEMRI was when I wrote my reply but I largely stand by my statement. MEMRI seems to be simply translating stuff that has been said, and seem controversial at that. They don't discuss the quotes nor do they really establish significance. Nil Einne (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hyperionsteel, the WP:BURDEN of evidence is absolutely not on Nableezy or Off2riorob to demonstrate that the translations are inaccurate. A political organization antagonistic to Soltan is not a reliable source on him. It's the job of the users who want to include it to affirmatively prove that it is accurate, particularly because this is a BLP. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, after thinking it over, this article should be probably be deleted as this doesn't seem to be notable enough. While his accusations that Jews use human blood to make Matzos do make him an $%^#@!&, it doesn't make him notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. As for your main point, I'm not sure why you are so combative. I simply asked if they had any evidence that the translation provided was inaccurate (I would think that a video of him broadcast on an international television station could conceivably be considered a reliable source, but that's just me). What is so unreasonable about asking that?


 * As for you claim that MEMRI is antagonistic to Soltan, I completely agree - I'm sure there are many organizations which are antagonistic to people who hold views such as his. Any organization that is not antagonistic to his views probably couldn't be cited in Wikipedia as a reliable source.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Andy Kindler
Andy's middle name is David NOT FRancis. I am his older sister Janette Kindler. Can this be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.68.196 (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed everything to just plain Andy Kindler - nothing else was sourced, not even Andrew, let alone his middle name. If you want his middle name in there, please provide a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Agnivesh
Agnivesh took part in the anti-corruption protests in India in August 2011. Later, he voluntarily stepped out of the protests, claiming that other protesters humiliated him. A couple of days later, a video showing Agnivesh speaking to a purported minister of Govt. of India was circulated in the Indian media and the internet. Agnivesh claimed innocence, saying that the video was doctored.

This information is being deliberately witheld by the author of the post who has kept the article in "protected" status, thereby not allowing others to modify the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartks (talk • contribs) 09:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a duplicate of an edit request at the talk page of the article.
 * Another editor has replied to the edit request by asking whether a source is available. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Another editor has replied to the edit request by asking whether a source is available. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Anjulie
The libellous statement "Anjulie is a self-described drug addict and has been growing and selling her own marijuana since she was a toddler." is unreferenced and contradicts the statement in her myspace page "i...don't drink or do drugs" (http://www.myspace.com/anjulie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.231.45 (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the report. Vandalism - removed and the user that added it warned. Added to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Fu'ad Ait Aatou
The article states that this actor has a spouse and lists the spouse's name as Kaejauny Tutfs. The information should be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.22.244.149 (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Naomi (pornographic actress)
During a discussion of whether or not the XRentDVD site could be considered a reliable source here, the Naomi (pornographic actress) was brought up as a practical example. I think it is fair to say that in regard to the source, it is questionable, since that site doesn't seem to have a reputation for fact checking or an editorial staff, but the material used as a source from that site is an interview. I took a look at the article, and I'm unsure as to whether or not the interview should be used to source the statement that the subject is jewish--on the one hand, I don't like the reliability of the site, but it's an interview with her, and that is an issue of self-identification. I am also uncomfortable with the interview being used to source the statement that her father was a rabbi, as I am assuming there is a good chance that her father is still alive, and that statement seems (to me anyway) not relevant in an article about her, and I don't think she's a reliable source for information about her father. I removed that bit, was reverted, tried again, was reverted, and as other editors disagree with me (see the Talk:Naomi_(pornographic_actress), it seems best to bring it up here. All comments welcome, --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction: the article says: "She has stated that she is Jewish and her father was a rabbi", and this is supported by a reference. I had changed that in this edit a long time ago, throwing out most of the completely unverifiable biography. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as I have said, the reference is pretty iffy, as the web site is not really a reliable source. I'm not sure what relevance her father being a rabbi has to the article in the first place, so I'm not sure why you left that when removing the other material, could you explain the logic? I don't doubt that she said it, but the fact of that matter is no more verifiable than her claim that she worked as a legal analyst and a medical assistant, and unlike the latter two assertions, the bit about her father being a rabbi is a statement by her about someone else, and thus seems out of bounds to me per SPS, and probably BLP (as there's a good chance her father's alive). --Nuujinn (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should phrase this a different way--am I to assume from the response I have gotten to my questions thus far that it is ok to use statements from the subject of an article in an interview as a source for assertions, regardless of the reliability of the source, about personal details such as ethnicity, occupation, religion or sexual preferences of their relatives, so long as those statements are attributed to the subject of the article? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Why would her father be mentioned at all? That she is Jewish is sourced. That can be mentioned. But the article is not about her father. That her father is a rabbi is totally irrelevant information and should be omitted. Bus stop (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, but evidently others on the article's talk page disagree. That's why I brought it up here. Pieter Kuiper seems to disagree. It's not an earth shattering question, but it does seem to me to be inappropriate to use a subject's statement about someone else, even if they are are relative, if there is no coverage of that in other sources. I'm still hoping to get some additional input on the issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yuri Dojc
Can I get some more eyes on this article - edits such as this one are problematical. I know nothing about the chap but it's an article that has ended up on my watch list. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I made some copy edits to the article and put it on my watchlist. It's still messy, but you properly reverted the edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I made some edits too. The main problem as I see it is lack of sources in several sections. --BweeB (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The legal stuff cannot stay even with a tag, and I've removed the section and the external link to the court opinion. It's backed up only by primary sources, and it is misinterpreted (which is the reason why primary sources are problematic). It is also not even remotely related to Dojc, the photographer. It's a side show, and at this point only accusations by one individual. The single purpose account that has been adding it repeatedly, despite warnings, has been blocked for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks. --BweeB (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have suppressed the material as libellous. If the SPA returns in the same vein, I'll indef block. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry
Please see question here raised regarding calculating of Rick Perry's GPA, based on a transcript posted on Huffington Post. These calculations were done in good faith, but I would like a take on it from the WP:BLP perspective as well as the WP:OR perspective. Thanks - discussion is at Talk: Rick Perry. Tvoz / talk 19:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting that it wasn't a transcript released by the Perry campaign or released by any governmental agency. Quoting the huffpo: "A source in Texas passed The Huffington Post Perry's transcripts from his years at Texas A&M University." Kevin (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now, there's a single line in the article ("X had a GPA of Y"). Honestly though, unless this gets picked up beyond HuffPo, I think it's just UNDUE.  If it does get picked up, it might warrant inclusion then.  Otherwise I think it's just the usual political muck-racking that tends to go on around now (and for the next year or so.  Sigh.) Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cite it to an RS whose number corresponds to the consensus talk page calculation, and use the published value. Add a comment in the reference about the range of averages in published sources. Try to find a reference for the weightings used in calculating the GPA; some schools will weight non-major courses less; some give bonus weightings for different courseloads. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Valerie Sinason
The sentence about satanic ritual abuse being a moral panic should be deleted. Overall the article needs balance. As it stands it is simply an attack on the reality of satanic rituals being used to torture children. It is possible that the article should be deleted in its entirety.

Sinason is only one of many clinicians who have treated survivors. See, Epstein, Orit Badouk; Schwartz, Joseph; & Schwartz, Rachel Wingfield (2011). Ritual Abuse and Mind Control;The Manipulation of Attachment Needs. London:Karnac.

In addition there is a history of convictions of perpetrators of this form of paedophile torture on children. The latest is the case from Wales: "A man has been found guilty of leading a "satanic" sex cult from his home in a small Welsh town" GUardian 9 March 2011. There have been at least 7 other convictions over the last 25 years with one sentence of 15 years (1989), three sentences of 14 years(1982), one sentence of 12 years (1992) and 6 other sentences ranging from 10 years to 2 years. The lack of inclusion of this material evidence amounts to censorship. Only one view is allowed: satanic ritual abuse is a moral panic. THis is a fundamental violation of Wikipedia's values. Dirac137 (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... so no WP:BLPN contributors want to get involved in the satanic abuse debate? I guess I'll try to go through this article with WP:BLP in mind when I have some time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Satanic ritual abuse IS considered a moral panic by the majority of recognized experts, and there are already plenty of source in the article indicating that (for more, see the article on the topic). Removing that information from the article would, in effect, be endorsing the views of a fringe view by censoring very pertinent information. Per our WP:FRINGE rules we can and must include in an article when a view is a fringe view. Dirac137 completely misunderstands Wikipedia policies. We are not here to give "both sides" and we definitely do not completely remove the mainstream view just because he/she disagrees with it. The article could use a light brush of editing to have more neutral language and some expansion of content, assuming reliable sources indicating sufficient notability are found, but as a whole the treatment of SRA in the article follows policies. DreamGuy (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentally, before I read the above discussion, I've just tagged South Ronaldsay child abuse scandal as BLP and removed one glaringly unsourced paragraph. AfD crossed my mind, but I thought I'd better mention it here first.--Northernhenge (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What evidence supports the sentence: "Satanic abuse IS considered a moral panic by the majority of recognised experts"? This is not NPOV. The claim that SRA is a fringe view is based on ignoring or dismissing the legal convictions that involve SRA and ignores or dismisses clinical articles in referreed journals and books from reputable publishers. It is not an NPOV but an unsupported assumption based on selective evidence. Labelling SRA as a fringe view assumes the very result it is trying to prove. A neutral point of view must include the clinical experience of numerous clinicians who describe their treatment of people who report experiences of SRA used to torture and terrorise them by pedophile rings when they were children. To deny this voice is not an NPOV. The denial is similar to the deniers of childhood sexual abuse full stop who argue that reports of childhood sexual abuse is false memory syndrome.

The article on Sinason as it stands is a vehicle to argue against SRA instead of having a NPOV about Sinasons's life and contributions. For example Sinason IS known for her treatment of individuals who report experiences of sexual abuse involving SRA. But she is much better known professionally for what, I would call,  her pioneering work with people who suffer mental disability, for her treatment of survivors of sexual abuse  and for her use of psychodynamic methods in the treatment of psychosis and MPD. In the larger culture Sinason is much better known because of her monthly GUardian columns, a fact that is not even mentioned in the BLP as written. It's just not right. In previous exchanges with MathewTStone I argued that the Sinason bio should be pulled if all it is is a way to label her and her career as being on fringe.

How can we move forward here? Could we simply say Sinason has treated people who report childhood experience of SRA wit a link to the Wiki article? I appeal to you. The article does not have an NPOV but is really a hatchet job. Yes? 109.156.16.175 (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been slow to realise that the issue that bothers me is not whether SRA is fringe or not. I'm bothered by my feeling that the article on Sinason doesn't have a NPOV. The writer wants to make sure the reader knows that SRA is fringe and that consequently Sinason is a crank. For example how can it be shown that Sinason is best known for her treatment of people who report SRA? Why isn't she best known for her monthly Guardian columns on psychotherapy that ran for 6 years? The article doesn't include the fact that Sinason is chair of the Clinic for Dissociative Studies totally funded by the NHS for the treatment of dissociative identity disorder 80% of which report surviving ritualised abuse. The NHS supports Sinason's work. This is mainstream. The article as written portrays SInason as a crank. This is not a NPOV. Dirac137 (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Tucker Smith
I am Tucker Smith the actor. I am alive, straight, have no sibligs or children. I am living in Costa Mesa, Ca. Please help straighten my biography out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugettelaine (talk • contribs) 01:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi - this seems to assert you have expired - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3920772.html - can another user have a look at the recent removals please....Off2riorob (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not surprisingly, there seem to be multiple actors who go by the name Tucker Smith. Are you saying you are the actor who appears in the 1961 movie version of West Side Story as Ice? If not, bear in mind the article does not refer to you. Unless you met the criteria at WP:Notability, for example, Notability (people), it's unlikely there will be an article on you. BTW, if you are saying you are the actor who appeared in West Side Story, we have a problem since it seems multiple sources, e.g. the above and  say that you died in 1988. Given that, I presume this isn't a new problem to you and you've dealt with it before. Are you aware of any sources which have published a correction or clarification? Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking in to this more, I've reverted the changes by Fugettelaine. I note this user changed the birth name, and is also claiming a different date and place of birth. The place at least is also sourced. I also see Talk:Tucker Smith someone says they got in contact with people who knew Tucker Smith and while they suggested some of the claims in the article at the time were incorrect, they didn't seem to question key facts including the death. Therefore I'm having trouble believing the Tucker Smith actor probably born April 24 1936 as Thomas William Smith and in Philadelphia who starred in West Side Story is still alive. Perhaps there is another Tucker Smith actor born Paul Ouellette in December 30, 1936 in Great Falls but I guess they aren't the actor who starred in West Side Story. If Fugettelaine is the person who acted in West Side Story, again I guess you must be aware how there is a lot of confusion out there. Unless you've written to some WP:RS who has published a clarification, I don't think there's much we can do. Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks to User:Nil Einne and User:ukexpat for looking into this. I does appear to be a case of mistaken identification now resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this is resolved. The Tucker Smith who appeared in the West Side Story has multiple obituaries. There can't be two Tucker Smiths, per actor's union rules. The current version, as edited by user:Tucker smith, has him alive. I think we need to require an OTRS identification of that account to make sure it is not an impostor. I suppose user:Tucker smith is the same person as User:Fugettelaine. I think something here isn't right, so I'm removing the "resolved" tag until this is truly resolved.     Will Beback    talk    08:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Um -- there are far more than one union in this world for actors. Within each union (or "guild"), there are rules about names, but historically there was no specific cross-union name-uniqueness system.  SAG, AFTRA, AGVA and Equity did not co-ordinate names historically.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If there were two "Tucker Smiths" on Broadway in the 1950s I'll eat my hat. The impostor account has been blocked pending identification.   Will Beback    talk    12:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Um -- one person on Broadway (Equity), one in films (SAG) at a time when the two guilds were far less than collegial = you may need a Homburger.  The point I made was that until quite recently the guilds did not have any rules preventing using names of persons in other unions - the unions barely spoke to one another .  Is that clear enough, Will?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're arguing here. That there were two "West Side Story" stars coincidentally named "Tucker Smith" who had identical careers except for their birthname and birthplace? That wouldn't make any sense. This seems like a straightforward hoax.    Will Beback    talk    13:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please get this straight? I neither know nor care who the Smiths are. I only corrected a misstatement about uniqueness of stage names.   Nor do I assert that someone is a "hoax" without a tad more evidence than you appear to require.   What I do assert is that the uniqueness of stage names was not historical by any means at all.  And that is what I said, no matter how zealously you wish to assert that I hold an opinion about any specific Smiths at all. Cheers.  End response to straw argument. Collect (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

We have obits for Equity member "Tucker Smith" dying in 1988. Note, however, this SAG article from 2008:    Cate Smit, Ashton Smith, Brooke Smith, Hillary B Smith, Phyllis Smith, Sheldon Smith, Peter James Smith, Tucker Smith, Bill Smitrovich, Rena Sofer, Marla Sokoloff, Matthew Solari are listed as SAG members who signed a 2008 petition. Just for what it's worth, you understand. The current SAG "Tucker Smith" does not appear to meet Wikipedia notability standards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't care then why did you feel the need to stop by here and comment? Sometimes it seems like you just follow me around to disagree. FWIW, Actors Equity has a rule that says: "To protect individuality, Equity policy does not permit the duplication of names among its members." Perhaps, since the old Smith has died, the name has become available again. Or perhaps the newer Smith isn't in Equity.    Will Beback    talk    21:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh Will -- I rather think I am a regular denizen at this noticeboard.  Especially considering the number of BLPs I have edited as a result.  Might you note the number of posts I have made at BLP/N before making accusations?  I hear another boojum.   I am most certainly not following you around to point out when you totally misapprehend facts.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Internet Movie Database shows a couple of non-West Side Story Tucker Smiths, none notable. This editor's effort to inject himself into the bio of the dead actor is in very poor taste. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I am the one who started Tucker Smith's article and I now just happened to stumbled upon how this character whatshisname is hijacking it by claiming Smith is alive and well. I have personally been in contact via email with Smith's nephew, including actress Sylvia Lewis and actor Darteo Sommese. Just check out all the references I have cited in this article and there is no doubt that Tucker Smith passed away in 1988. This is not a case of mistaken identity but a deliberate and vicious attempt to hijack an entry with false information. I do not doubt there is more than one Tucker Smiths out there: in fact, there is a painter named Tucker Smith if you google the name. But no way would anyone with any common sense would confuse Tucker Smith the actor with Tucker Smith the painter. Incidentally, Darteo Sommese have told me that a while back, he received a phone call from some anonymous nutcase who claimed that Tucker Smith is not dead and is alive and is living somewhere in the midwest. In any case, I extend my thanks to all of you who put a stop to this nonsense and nipped it in the bud. Madonnarama (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that I too had strong suspicion the 'Tucker Smith' editing the article was some sort of hoaxer when I made my comment above. Although there are other Tucker Smiths, as me and others found on IMDB, I don't see much evidence they are nearly the same age and I found it hard to believe someone would notice all the stuff about being dead and gay but somehow fail to notice the article was referring to a person who acted in West Side Story. This would suggest the person behind the account was claims to be PDO was claiming to be TS who acted in WSS but as I said this is hard to believe from the evidence even before Madonnarama commented. Even if this really were the case, the person must be aware of the confusion and it's resonable to expect they would have provided some clarification. However at the time, I felt it best to AGF that the person could somehow really be confused as to who the article is referring to rather then come out and call them as hoaxer. However as the person has apparently continued to edit while failing to provide any further clarification after I pointed out the problems with their edits and after other people have asked them for clarification I agree it's difficult to AGF any more. Nil Einne (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Catherine Senitt
My name, Glenn Harbison, is mentioned in this article. I want this removed ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.9.18 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed a few words out of this article, which may or may not assuage your concerns. I will leave it to others to decide whether a total removal of your name from the article is justified. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the change made by Demiurge1000 in tbis matter. Brief mention of the former husband is appropriate given his role in the artist's career during that marriage.  Personal details about him beyond that are not necessary.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What role "in the artist's career" do you mean? There is not the slightest suggestion of that in the article. Moriori (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Chris Hansen
This BLP has a section entitled "Louis Conradt, Jr. controversy" that belongs more appropriately on the To Catch a Predator article. Also, Louis Conradt has an article as well. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you have a seat? Just take a seat.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I in agreement with Malke's comment and was moving it and then To Catch a Predator is fully protected till the 13 Sept so it needs adding after that. Off2riorob (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, Rob so we'll wait unless we can ask the admin overseeing the article. Ian:  Love the "Why don't you have a seat?"  Malke 2010 (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Methinks someone is a Fark.com regular... – ukexpat (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Toro Castro
Only one source included in the article even mentions this person's name, and that article says he was acquitted. I'm thinking this is a serious BLP violation. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a new article. I've blanked it because of the BLP issues. The first of four sources is a blog in Spanish. I didn't bother translating it because a blog is not a reliable source generally and certainly not for this. Another source says he was acquitted. Another source doesn't mention him. And the last source is apparently a primary source. My assumption is it's in Spanish, but when I tried to open it, it failed. Even assuming it says something, we can't rely on a primary source for this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * - now under discussion at ... - Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The author of this article is now also busy at 2006 Ontario terrorism plot and has great plans; eyes there might be useful as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Mem Fox
I'm not sure of my reading of WP:NPF, so I thought it best to bring the issue here. As an executive summary: The question is whether or not this should go in the article about Mem Fox.
 * Mem Fox is an Australian academic and author, best known for a very successful children's book she published in 1983.
 * Her husband, Malcolm Fox, was recently convicted and given a suspended sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. He is appealing the conviction.
 * Malcolm Fox is not otherwise notable.
 * There are no problems with sources - the case was well covered in the Australian media.
 * There has been no suggestion that Mem Fox was in any way connected with her husbands actions, nor that she was aware of them.

The main reasons given for including it are: as a children's author, the actions of her husband reflect on her career choice; issues relating to family members are sometimes included in articles; and this event would have an impact on Mem Fox's life. The main arguments against are that it would be wrong to draw a connection between Mem Fox and her husband's actions, as there was none; there would be weight issues given the current state of the article; and that as a non-public figure, policy seems to suggest only including details relevant to her notability (I don't see this as relevant to Mem Fox's notability, but relevant to Malcolm Fox).

I can't see us coming to an agreement as things stand, so other opinions (either way) would help find some consensus. - Bilby (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a description of her husband's recent sex crime conviction belongs in the biography of someone notable for a book published 28 years ago.  I've said so on the talk page as well.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoo. This article is about her, not him. So we need to draw a line (may even say split some hairs). If all the information we can write is that her husband was convicted, that's not really about her, and is highly derogatory by association, so shouldn't be written. That said, though, odds are fair this is going to have a major impact on her, and we won't be able to avoid writing about that impact. If she campaigns for him, or against him, writes about the incident, divorces him, whatever, that we will need to write, and we won't be able to avoid writing why. Until then, though, as long as the only way the reliable sources mention her is that she is his wife, but don't write about her as such, we can leave it out. --GRuban (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin
Much of the information in this article is poorly sourced. He was mentioned in the news once or twice but is largely an unknown and low-profile individual. I do not believe that he is notable enough to justify having a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.0.249 (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Appears to have a degree of note, interviews with prominent press outlets - request to appear in front of Senate of Canada. Muslim anti jihad activist. Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Politicians involved in gay sex scandals
Category:Politicians involved in gay sex scandals was created yesterday and mentioned on a prominent external blog. It has since been nominated for deletion and also tagged for speedy deletion with many users expressing BLP concerns. Can someone from here take a look at the situation before it spirals? Timrollpickering (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My God, it's full of socks. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cat was created and populated by User:Saizai, who says he was inspired but not directed by D Savage although a poster by the name of D Savage with links to a bio about him encouraged and directed the flying monkeys to the category. User;Saizai did email Savage to inform him about the category creation - Good riddance to it, Andy said it well - "A blatant attempt to use Wikipedia to push a political campaign. ". All attempts at which should be strongly resisted and rejected on sight by wikipedia editors. Off2riorob (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ruslan Salei
States at the bottom of the first page he died in a plane crash, but he may be alive. He doesn't fly, so he might not be dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wincetuttle (talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is as yet unclear whether he was on the plane - at least one source seems to imply that he was, though it might be better to get confirmation of this. The same will apply for any others on the team that we have articles on - can other editors keep a watch on this please? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Heithold
This biographical article of Gen. Heithold is out of date. He was recently promoted from Major General to Lieutenant General. He is now Vice Commander of the US Special Operations Command and is no longer commander of the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaisance Agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.67.7 (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif
BLP black-belts could be helpful at Articles for deletion/Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif. The question is whether or not an article can be written about a suspect in a criminal case, when there has not yet been a trial or conviction. I seem to recall that there was never an article on Casey Anthony (which redirects to Death of Caylee Anthony) because of BLP issues. --Noleander (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)



Cesare Casella
Hello,

My name is Allison McCann and I work as Cesare Casella's personal assistant. I have been trying to update, as well as provide sources for, his Wikipedia page. However, every time I make edits they are revoked. I have not been trying to promote Cesare Casella, simply to make his wikipedia page more to-date and correct. I can send you a copy of his latest biography if someone from the Wikipedia staff would prefer to update the page.

I am just working to remove the "multiple issues" flag that is at the top of his page in whatever way possible. Please advise.

Thank you, Allison McCann Chef Casella Office — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.243.108 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has a number of problems, large elements are full of language that reads like an advert, the tone is wrong for a wikipedia article. We just want the facts supported by reliable sources. I have started to edit it to take care of the problems. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Watson
The editing of Watson's profile is in violation of NPOV, as some editor has decided that white female privilege does not apply--to a discussion where she called Richard Dawkin's a white privileged male.

Here is the deleted text with citations "the several months long debate also included Watson and her friends attacking Dawkin's along the lines of privilege, but also had some asking the question "do white females have more privilege to speak about these issues?" Some maintained that White Female Privilege was at the center of the debate, and many, if not all white females objected to their privilege being called by name."

diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebecca_Watson&diff=446897521&oldid=443874460 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OhLawwd (talk • contribs) 23:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

R.C. Slocum
Poorly written, unprofessional biography citing events and anecdotes with few references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Power Forward (talk • contribs) 23:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely true, it's dreadful. I don't have time to look at it now - maybe other editors will edit it as it needs a lot of work.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken Boyd (politician)
There has been an edit war going on for the past few days over this article. I have protected the page to prevent further edit warring. Lots of words have been written on the talk page, but consensus does not appear to be forming any time soon. Can somebody interested in local Virginia politics please stop by the talk page and see if the issue can be worked out? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Burton
This entry is about me. It was posted by former employers against my will, and is a continual source of embarrassment. Please delete immediately. Many thanks. Pivpavpov (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The page was previously deleted in 2008, then recreated shortly thereafter. Pivavpov put an AFD tag on the page, but it links to the previous discussion.  There are no references for most facts, but there are links to some interviews and appearances.  I don't see anything that suggests notability.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed the AfD for a second nomination.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   23:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)



John Michael Botean
The reference for Bishop Botean's letter on the Iraq War leads to a dead page. Here is a current (for the moment) link:

http://www.jonahhouse.org/boteanRCbishop.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.31.60 (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * - ✅ - Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ray O'Connor.
Ray is still alive, though unwell at teh moment, comments re him being jailed and possibly guilty are incorrect as I am aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.31.94 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes - there doesn't seem to be any source for this, and unless one can be found, it shouldn't be in the article - I'll remove it, and then look into the matter further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed - usage of primary sources and 404 pages makes me wary of allowing any of that in. Collect (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Mehmet Emin Hazret
Could I get another set of eyes on Mehmet Emin Hazret? I think the article is about someone who is both a screenwriter and a terrorist, but I want to be sure I'm not mixing up the biographies of two people with the same name. (The linked source does note that the terrorist at one point did some screenwriting.) First, the article was about a terrorist. Then an IP added the second mini-article about a screenwriter within this revision. And then later another user (their only contribution) removed the original biography focused on terrorism. I put it back (seeing as the zh.wiki article and the reliable sources I found were mostly about terrorism) and integrated the two biographies. So it's kind of an odd case, and I want a sanity check. (Articles about terrorists are obviously tricky generally.) Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article relies on one source, an article by some fellow at the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program who reviewed a documentary. The article is long, and I haven't read all of it, but apparently Hazeret is a screenwriter and a terrorist, at least according to the documentary, as interpreted by the author of the article. What troubles me is that we have an article accusing someone of being a terrorist just on this one source and an unusual source at that.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've opened a new topic on WP:RSN to discuss the one source.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Chinese Wikipedia article about him has a different source (in Chinese) that seems to corroborate the terrorism connection, but I had to rely on Google Translate because I don't speak Chinese. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Mayawati
I bring this topic to BLPN because I think it deserves the attention of a wider audience. The issue at hand here is the inclusion of the Wikileaks allegations against Mayawati in the Mayawati BLP article. The section is located at Mayawati. There are also relevant sections on the talkpage of the article. The allegations about shoes, egomania etc. against Mayawati, attributed to unnamed diplomats, in my opinion, are not fit to be in the article per WP:BLP. I ask that the offending section be deleted in its entirety. My views are summarised in this permalink at the Mayawati article talkpage. I bring this matter here as a matter of principle and I will abide by the local consensus. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A more general question here is whether Wikileaks cables meet WP:RS. In this case, Julian Assange has personally commented on the validity of the cables referring to Mayawati, and Mayawati herself has denied them.    Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the question is if Wikileaks meet the RS criteria. Even if they do, the larger question is if these anonymous allegations are just slander without proof of any kind of validity against Mayawati's character. I think that they definitely are and so they should not be in her BLP. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 16:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Mayawati a "paranoid" with "jet-setting sandals"?
Maybe the presentation above was insufficient to attract attention. So I add an excerpt from the Wikileaks section in Mayawati's article to try to elicit some type of response from the BLPN experts/regulars: "Leaked diplomatic cables stated that she ran all governmental decisions through her small group of advisors to maintain a 'vice-like grip on all levels of power.' In confidential US diplomatic cables dated 23 October 2008 and leaked by the Wikileaks website in September 2011, it was alleged that Mayawati sent an empty private jet to Mumbai to retrieve some sandals. The cables allege that, fearing assassination, she is paranoid about her security, and employs food tasters to guard against poisoning. One of the releases described her as being 'obsessed with becoming Prime Minister'." The question arises: Are the Wikileaks cables expert and reliable enough to call Mayawati "paranoid"? Also, are allegations about "food tasters" and jet-setting sandals important enough and reliable enough to remain in the article without corroboration from third-party sources? What part of the Wikileaks allegations, if any, should remain in Mayawati's article? Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 12:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Major independent quality publications like the BBC have commented on this wikileaks detail about the subject - I looked at it and she has commented also about it, imo some mention is required. A decent write to remove some of the "excited detail" .. as she is vocally in support of the harijans untouchables - undue extravagance allegations are going to be widely reported.. Attribution should be clear - an American civil servant opined.... ...its rubbish but its been so widely reported and commented on as to be ... I will try to trim it back a bit to the simple uninvolved position...    Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is spot-on Rob. You are one of the editors with whom I have no trouble agreeing whenever we meet. I am not completely happy; I would have preferred the disappearance of this tripe but at least an editor whom I respect, has given a great analysis and rationale to match. I respect your decision and also thank you for taking the time to provide your opinion here. Thanks also for the expert cleanup of the section in the article. Take care and keep up the good work. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Soulja_Boy
I've now seen Soulja Boy's rant on my facebook friends accounts about 3 times in the past hour. Apparently his anti-military rant is growing wings (for which he has apologized.) I've removed some hate comments from his talk page and surprisingly his article page has not been vandalized. But we might want to keep an extra eye on this page over the next couple of days. The timing of his release, prior to 9/11 has attracted special mention in most articles.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The ranting IP had also blanked the talk page except for his material, so I restored the old talk page. I also manually archived most of the page and added it to my watch list to help watch for anything more.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, that article is a real mess. I removed some of the most egregious violations, but there's still a lot of work need to bring it up to BLP standards.  In particular, there's an extensive "controversy" section that takes up about a third of the article that's almost entirely sourced to some random blog. None of it is reliably sourced or notable to the biography. As for the timing of the release, well, every thing that happens in the late summer is "prior to 9/11."  It doesn't seem to be at all related so connecting the two in the article wouldn't be neutral (and would veer into WP:SYNTH). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Milan Vujicic
Milan Vujičić (Serbian: Милан Вујичић; born April 17, 1982 in Belgrade, Serbia) is a Serbian-American basketball coach. In 2004, he became a FIBA licensed basketball coach.

He is currently the head assistant coach at the NCAA school Centenary College — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treneri (talk • contribs) 03:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * At present there does seem to be an article on this person on Wikipedia. Is this person notable? Have their life and career been covered in books and periodicals? If so, then you may like to create an article on this person. But please check this policy first WP:NOTABILITY to make sure the person qualifies for an article. cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael Lewis
There are a number of problems with this bio:

1. It is highly promotional; 2. It seems to list every article ever written by the author which IMO is not part of a biography; 3. As noted before, the external links are also promotional material and should be removed; 4. There is a separate heading "Works of Michael Lewis" which is redundant and appears to be promotional too; 5. Suspect input from author/promoter and possible socket puppetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imyoung (talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed a lot of the editorializing in the article. I've significantly cut down the number of external links, although I've left in the tag for the moment (I've added a sources tag also). There is no section called "Works of Michael Lewis"; there is one called "Writings by Lewis". The subsection on his articles seems a bit much, but I haven't decided what to do with it yet. As for conflicts and sockpuppetry, you need to elaborate more on that. Which editor in particular do you think has a conflict? Who is a sock puppet of whom (and if you really think that, you should file a report on WP:SPI)?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work Bbb23, I feel that this EL should also be deleted since it goes to a WordPress blog. However, that URL serves as a reference in this discussion in that it shows about 100 articles by the subject. Should they all be listed in his bio? Well for one they all contain embedded URL's that lead to the articles, which is a violation of WP:EL but I would take it a step further and just delete the whole section. Thoughts? --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the blog EL, I agree it's prohibited by the guideline, but, at the same time, it seems useful to me. Given that WP:EL is a guideline and not policy, I guess I'd leave it in. As for the article subsection, there are 25 articles listed, and some might argue that if we listed all of his articles, it would be VERY long. And it's not clear to me how the listed articles were selected. I suppose I mildly favor removal of the subsection, although we don't limit filmography tables, for example, of actors, just because they get long. As you have probably figured out, I'm ambivalent about this, which is why I haven't removed the link or the subsection.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed my view on the article subsection. My actor example is flawed because a journalist, arguably, can write far more articles in a short space of time than an actor can act in a film play, or a television show. Therefore, I think, unless there's some reason to discuss a particular article (like an award or a controversy about it), it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. And if there is some reason to mention it, it can be folded into the body of the article, not stuck in a list. I'm going to remove the list and point to this discussion in my edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Mike Share
All of the information written about Mike Share is by Mike Share. Having researched him, I know that he has not played for many of the clubs he says he has. He has not been appointed a manager; he starts the clubs! The websites the information comes from - he writes these.

I am happy to provide more information on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericgenie (talk • contribs) 08:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article needs sourcing, but I've compresssed it. It doesn't really say much about Share, mostly consisting of attempts rather than any real successes. I've nominated the most recent team he started for deletion and am thinking about nominating the Share article for deletion as well. Which editor do you believe is Share?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)




 * - connected AFD -

I think it's bbcsport who is Share. He is known to try to be authentic by quoting such illustrious sources as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericgenie (talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Better not to claim the subject is editing their article without verification - all you can assert is that in your opinion someone with a conflict of interest appears to be editing this article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rob, but I also don't even understand your response. What "illustrious sources"? Also, please sign your contributions. SineBot is working overtime.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * BBC Sport - illustrious source. Surely that makes sense?

You seem to be intimating that I have a conflict of interest here. I don't. I assumed Wikipedia wanted balanced, accurate articles. All of the Mike Share-related articles quote references from the websites he runs himself. Every time I have tried to edit them with my own, verified research (sources including Spanish FA, Exeter City, Gillingham FC, players who have played with him, NPSL, etc), 'he' has changed things back, sometimes adding more. If you care to look at the changes 'he' has made, you will find they only concern articles about himself or his vested interests. is a starting point for you, I hope. Genericgenie (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't think anyone was accusing you having a conflict. I was just having trouble understanding part of what you said. In fact, it occurred to me after I posted my question that you might be referring to the editor's username itself. Indeed, I wonder if his username violates WP:ORGNAME - see BBC Sports. I'd appreciate any comments on that issue from other editors. In any event, the Share article is being closely watched now and has been nominated for deletion, so we'll see how this plays out.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom Zakrajsek
Sourced material repeated removed, large paragraph of unsourced and irrelevant information added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.157.194 (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The "sourced material" is a BLP violation because it does not support the assertions criticizing Zakrajsek. I have removed the section. I haven't looked at the other section that an editor tried to introduce in its place. For the moment, my biggest concern was with the BLP violation. I have commented on my removal on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Having now looked at the replacement material, it is mostly improperly formatted garbage. Maybe it comes from some earlier iteration that was better presented, don't know. As recently introduced, though, it has no place in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Kellen Moore
Kellen is listed as a player in the western athletic conference. He plays for Boise State, which is now in the Mountain West Conference. Kellen is also listed as being a "communications" major. Boise State has no such major. He is a Communication major. There is no s in the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.102.186 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are free to make such minor corrections yourself, as long as you rely on what reliable sources say.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Anyone can make these edits (and if User:24... is correct then someone should), but there's nothing needing discussion here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a minor point of order that the page is semi-protected, so 24... can't make the edits. In the future, though, 24.98.102.186, you can use the article's talk page to bring up these kind of concerns.  You can also place the editprotected template on the talk page of the article to ask someone to come along and make your changes.  either way (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed it. That's a lot of talk for an IP who probably can't follow this conversation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Henry Winkler
Henry Winkler OBE ? When was he given an OBE ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.208.126 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In February of this year - it's sourced in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * - http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a0074344/henry-winkler-receives-honorary-obe-for-services-to-children-with-special-educational-needs-and-dyslexia - Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ben T. Elliott
This biographical article looks like it was written completely by one of the subject's children. The relationship between the subject and the author (tom elliott) is documented in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/25/magazine/25REPUBLICANS.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.22.236 (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As BLP issues on Wikipedia go, this article doesn't look particularly problematic at all. It can use a bit of cleanup, but unless anyone can point to some particular issue in greater detail, I'm not sure there's anything needing discussion on this noticeboard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Richard Sieburth
I would like to add two items to the authored books category:

Instigations: Ezra Pound and Remy de Gourmont (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976) Poids et mesures/Weights and Measures (Dijon: Ulysse Fin de Siècle, 1988)

Richard Sieburth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.185.144 (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

lenutaa_mirceaa
htpp://lenutaa_mirceaa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.229.230 (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Tim Cook
The Tim Cook article currently states that "In 2011, Cook, who is protective of his private life, was named to the top spot on Out magazine's fifth annual "Power 50" list of LGBT people.10 However, he has never publicly declared any details about his sexuality." (The article also included him in a couple LGBT cats for a while, which I removed per WP:BLPCAT.)

Gawker first "outed" him earlier this year, but they are clearly not a WP:RS. Out magazine is (a bit) less sensationalist; with his new role as Apple CEO, this topic is getting much more attention from the likes of The Atlantic, Australia's Herald Sun, and a Reuters blog, as well as thousands of other lesser Google hits.

Note that, as several of these sources point out, the subject has not disclosed his orientation.

The question is whether any of these, or the sum of these, are reliable enough to allow the topic be included in the BLP. (I'm pretty conservative with respect to the BLP policies, so as you can guess, I'm leaning against - and yet Anderson Cooper has likewise not been public about his orientation, but his article has a whole paragraph about it...)

Thanks, AV3000 (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am also leaning to keep out - that Out (magazine)'s annual "Power 50" list of LGBT people is not notable in itself - From the 2011 50 list, Tim Cook is the only person that has had it added - to his BLP and to the talkpage to his article and to this noticeboard - apart from that - there are five more external links to the previous four years of "Power 50" lists  - so out of a possible 250 positions of five years the coverage of it is minimal indeed - sometimes publications add something like this to create controversy and attract attention - not to valuable facts, but to themselves. Power 50 usage on wiki en - the other five links are dead links. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that both sentences should be removed. Putting aside whether this particular list is notable, I don't think we should be reporting that someone is gay just because they're on a list if we don't have another reliable source to back up the inclusion on the list in the first instancfe. And I don't think adding the sentence about "never publicly declared" does anything to reduce the impact of the first sentence other than sound like so-and-so-was-accused-but-had-no-comment sort of garbage.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed it as per, unconfirmed speculation about a living persons sexuality. Currently its nothing more than repeated gossip and speculation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks. AV3000 (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * - It seems the Gay blogs are lighting up about this persons sexuality.... and even thought he has as yet made no comment about his sexuality they are after claiming him as one of their own. Please keep an eye on it, I have removed a couple of comments and directed the users to this discussion - one said he is an openly gay man and the other was in the lede that he is the first gay CEO of Apple and the usual BLPCAT violating additions have also been inserted and removed. One position is that we have to mention he is gay because unless we add the speculation everyone will think he's straight. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been watching the additions and your removals. Of course, putting material in the body and catting the article are two separate issues, but for the present, I agree with your removals from the body (obviously, the cats CAN'T be used), even with the introduction of newer sources. Things need to settle down a bit - for the moment, it just looks like gossipy turmoil.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Out (magazine) qualifies as a reliable source, more than sufficient as a source that the subject has been named on their list. BLPCAT only affects categorization, not the text in the article. We should not add any LGBT categories until the subject makes a self-declaration, but if there are adequate sources which discuss his orientation in a non-sensationalistic way we may use those.    Will Beback    talk    00:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Out magazine could likely be a reliable source but it is opinionated towards such issues and would clearly need attributing, as a WP:RS it is currently used in less that fifty BLP articles, the vast majority of which are openly self declared LGBT subjects - the source is not being used to speculated about their sexuality like it is here. Also to assert notability a report of his inclusion on such a list would need to be reported in a independant WP:RS - what have the BBC said about his sexuality? nothing at all - Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Although Cook has never discussed or commented on his sexuality the Homosexual community demanded he "come out" " of what they referred to as his "glass closet" and be a role model for other LGBT people. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Although Rob and I often disagree about this kind of issue, in this particular article we are in agreement. Even putting the material in the body at the moment is problematic as the sources are almost talking to each other and to themselves (introspectively). It's more of a media circus than a reportable event. I would at least wait for it to calm down and see what we have. I don't see any need for haste. It can wait.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the BBC has to do with anything. But The Atlantic magazine has mentioned it, for starters.   Will Beback    talk    01:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Farther afield, it's been covered in the Herald Sun of Asutralia.   Will Beback    talk    01:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Extensive coverage in the world news, according to Google.   Will Beback    talk    01:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But, Will, the Atlantic piece doesn't report he's gay. It reports that other sources outed him based on anonymous sources. Do you really want to report that in the article? (Rob likes the BBC.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - The BBC aspire to the standards of reporting especially in regards to living people that we should/would also be proud of. The title of the Atlantic article says it all, cook needs to come out - what, even if he doesn't want to? - the herald sun - yes, they are all titillating their sales with the sexual speculation. Off2riorob (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Rob said, "Also to assert notability a report of his inclusion on such a list would need to be reported in a independant WP:RS ". Other newspapers reporting on the list make inclusion on the list notable. The fact that this has been covered so extensively establishes its notability.   Will Beback    talk    01:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go in circles on this one as has occurred in other similar threads, so I'll just say that it may be newsworthy, but that doesn't justify its inclusion in the article in this instance at this time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am the same. Even though a degree of notability in an independent reliable-ish source that doesn't as yet justify its inclusion in the biograbphy. Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Before we finish this thread can we establish what you two think the threshold should be?   Will Beback    talk    01:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A major issue for current exclusion imo is the fact that the subject has never commented as yet at all about his sexuality - if there was something to bounce of that would likely change the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does a subject need to comment on something for it to become noteworthy? If someone is indicted and tells reporters "no comment" does that make it go away?   Will Beback    talk    01:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An indictment is announced by a reliable source based on a report from the grand jury or a prosecutor, so it doesn't require the subject of the indictment to do anything for it to be a reliable event.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, an indictment is incomparable as regards BLP guidelines compared to unconfirmed speculation in regard to a subjects sexuality. Off2riorob (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A reasonable and not an easy question. Requirements: (1) a reliable source; (2) reports the subject is gay based on something other than anonymous sources or rumors; and (3) the something that it is based on has to be noted in the source. In many instances, it will probably be self-identification (an interview, for example). However, unlike WP:BLPCAT, the second prong need not be satisfied (related to notability) to be included in the body of the article. However, it could also be based on sources other than the subject as long as it doesn't say rumors or anonymous. I reserve the right to refine these requirements in the future because I'm doing this on the fly. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you disagree with Off2riorob that the subject needs to comment on it, and he disagrees with you that the source needs to explain why they reached their conclusion. I think that shows there really is no standard being followed here - just seat of the pants guessing. There is noting in BLP that says we need to keep out well-sourced, uncontroversial material that's presented in a neutral fashion and attributed it when appropriate.   Will Beback    talk    01:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Will you are advocating we should report unconfirmed speculation about the sexuality of living subjects of our articles, clearly that is a contentious suggestion. - Perhaps we need a RFC about this to resolve the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit much, Will, for you to say that just because Rob and I don't agree on every point of the analysis (even if we agree on the conclusion), that that necessarily means it's "just seat of the pants guessing."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * - In 2011 after unconfirmed anonymous sources were reported to claim that Cook was gay .. out magazine named him at number one gay person in their gay top 50 list. The subject has never commented in regards to his sexuality at all. After the subject was promoted to the Apple CEO job coverage and speculation of Cook's alleged sexuality ballooned in the tabloid press and the gay blogging community demanded he come out of his glass closet and be a role model for other LGBT people. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What is this - draft text?   Will Beback    talk    01:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is what is being reported - I removed the issue - you are supporting adding something like this. Or at least you are supporting inclusion of this reporting - what are you suggesting is added to the BLP Will - please be specific what you want to include. This is the original 2010 blog on Gawker by "Rumourmonger" - speculating is he gay? - they followed that up in Jan this year with the we (Gawker) now have "since heard from two well-placed sources that this is indeed the case" all the rest is reporting of this. Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup - this is ridiculous. the sources being cited offer no evidence whatsoever. Crap like this has no place in a responsible online encyclopaedia. We don't report rumours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We report information from high-quality sources, like The Atlantic. We don't require people supply their marriage certificate before reporting that they've been married.   Will Beback    talk    03:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * - Shall we start a RFC about this article and if BLP supports inclusion or exclusion to see the standards of reporting the community is supportive of in regards to "unconfirmed" speculative reports or anonymous sources of someones sexuality ? Off2riorob (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * -@Will Beback has alerted the LGBT wikiproject of this dicsussion - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. A good opportunity for a RFC? Off2riorob (talk)
 * And Off2riorob alerted the watchers of Jimbo Wales's talk page. Could you add a notification of the RFC?    Will Beback    talk    03:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I can not believe any editor would say "rumors started to spread that he was gay." is remotely near a reliable source for such a claim in a BLP. Further that it is insufficient to list a person on a list of gays on the basis of such rumours (yes Will, such a list is precisely what I mean at the ArbCom discussion - I suggest that adding a person to such a list is and should be verboten on Wikipedia without extremely strong factual sources). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that Tim Cook has made no statement at all that he is gay. Unless I'm mistaken, this is all based on rumours and gossip. Totorotroll (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFC question

 * - When should an encyclopedic project contain unconfirmed speculative sexual orientation reporting in relation to the living subjects of their articles? Reading the discussion and the quality of the citations above what if anything do you support including in the BLP at this time. Does current WP:BLP policy support inclusion of such speculative reporting, and if not and community consensus supports such reporting what should be added to the BLP policy to clarify that? - Off2riorob (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Version reworded slightly by Will Beback
 * - Based on WP:BLP, when should biographies report unconfirmed sexual orientation? What quality of sources is necessary, and what responses are required from the subjects before we can add material on this topic? Should the BLP be with new language to cover discussions of sexual orientation in the text (as opposed to the categories already covered in WP:BLPCAT)?

comments

 * I do not think it would ever be appropriate to include such unconfirmed speculation. My76Strat (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Never Wikipedia should not contain unconfirmed information on sexual orientation of a BLP. It is dangerous to the reputation of that person.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between "confirmed speculation" and "unconfirmed speculation"? The question also revolves around reporting any speculation. For example, should we report speculation on whether Sarah Palin will campaign for President? I think the answer is that we should not include rumors, but when speculation reaches the point of widespread discussion then we need to report that. For example, the sexuality of Clay Aiken was a prominent issue, and he was questioned about it in a number interviews. We reported that speculation and his denial. That seems like the right approach.    Will Beback    talk    03:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Will Be back - As you know the situation in this case is all the reporting comes from a comment in a Gawker article that attributed the assertion to ""since heard from two well-placed sources that this is indeed the case" - Is this the level of reporting that you feel is high enough to report and include sexual orientation in our BLP articles ? Do you support addition and attribution of such (unconfirmed by the living subjects) reports of sexual orientation? Do you believe the BLP policy as written now supports such additions? Off2riorob (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know that - the issue I'm talking about is the Out magazine top 50, which has been widely reported.   Will Beback    talk    03:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a practical difference. Speculation is speculation and Wikipedia does not exist to further a speculated premise. My76Strat (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We should not speculate ourselves, but there is nothing wrong with mentioning widely reported speculation.   Will Beback    talk    03:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't the act of transmitting gossip gossiping? Leaning over the garden fence and relaying to your neighbour that Mrs Jones down the road thinks that Mr Smith at #666 is gay is the canonical form of gossip. John lilburne (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Gossip" is loose talk. Being given an award is an actual event. If we were to write the biography of John Lilburne, and said he was at the top of list for hunkiest men published in a wide distribution magazine, how is that a problem? If JL is called on of the "hunkiest men alive", should we decide on our own whether JL is really a self-identified hunk, and delete the reference if not?
 * Given that John Lilburne died 450+ years ago, I do believe we could delete the referenced based solely on deviation from the truth. John lilburne (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The phrasing of the question is almost as bad as the classic, "When did you stop beating your wife?" The real issue is, certain editors never accept WP:RS reports of any sexual orientation other than heterosexual.  If a source says a man is married to a woman, or has a girlfriend, that's OK, but sources saying he's gay or has a boyfriend are always "speculation."  One editor even demanded (perhaps facetiously) photos.  Even if a subject says he's gay, some editors still call it insufficient because how do we prove he's still gay (it might have been a phase or temporary insanity).  O2RR, I really want to WP:AGF, so can you please cite any examples where you've applied the same standard to both gay and straight subjects?TVC 15 (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is neutrally presented. We don't report heterosexual sexual orientation as its never or almost never reported in the press and never or almost never related to a subject notability - How many articles have you seen - Jonny who is a heterosexual man. My comments in regard to speculative or claimed sexuality is for this discussion when the subject themselves has not confirmed it. Off2riorob (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This feels like deja vu all over again, please look at some of the articles about Anderson Cooper's fellow news anchors, they almost all talk about 'married to X' and Walter Cronkite's bio mentions a girlfriend.TVC 15 (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree we should use the same standard when it comes to mentioning who someone is dating regardless of the sex or gender of the persons involved. I don't think we should necessarily apply the same standard when mentioning someone's sexuality. I do think we often report way too much on who celebrities are allegedly dating, it's true some editors are way to quick to dump tabloid gossip into an article. However both your examples appear to be poorly chosen. We would normally report if someone is married if reliably sources, regardless of the sex of the partner. In the WC case, he appears to have specifically commented on the relationship with the named individual (and he's dead although the person he was dating isn't). As far as I know, thew AC case doesn't involve any named individual, any marriage or even civil partnership and I'm pretty sure he has refused to comment on who he is dating. Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If we have to decide right now, then I must agree with Will Beback. However, I think it is worth considering the timing.  Apple's publicity people are probably working overtime managing the coverage of Steve Jobs and his career and health, and the subject of the article is probably working overtime because he is a "workaholic" and should have some time to consider how to relate to being a public figure.  Like most people (including me), Tim was probably hoping Steve would return to the CEO job in good health.  I would really prefer to wait a week, give them some space, let Steve retain the well-earned spotlight that Tim hasn't sought.TVC 15 (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with Will Beback. There's no special rule here - if reliable sources report something and present it as true then we should include it.  Of course, a tabloid saying "people are asking if..." and backing it up by the subject's refusal to comment does not rise to that level.  We should also report cases in which someone is called gay, if the incident is notable, without addressing the subject's actual sexual orientation - only covering the incident itself.  (I'm thinking of the Canadian newscasters who went after Johnny Weir a while back, and ended up in some kind of Canadian legal case - in that case certain people were trying to draw a different line on BLP.  I should note that an exceedingly broad and open-ended case potentially touching on this is currently in front of ArbCom...  ) Wnt (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The reporting was further compounded then when the LGBT magazine "out" - awarded him the number one gay spot on their top 50 list - leaving us with the dilemma - should we report that factoid which in itself asserts a sexual orientation that the subject has not confirmed. Off2riorob (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If a magazine named John Smith to its "top 50 leading men", would we argue over whether he's really a leading man? That'd be absurd.   Will Beback    talk    04:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is one of the points under dispute. You appear to assert that your interpretation of policy is that there is no difference between reporting someones unconfirmed sexual orientation and something as non personal at a "leading man" - imo it is more of a contentious thing to state as if fact claims about someones sexually when they have never confirmed it than the claim that that won a leading man award. That is my interpretation of BLP, that reporting of sexuality is a highly personal and in general private affair, and so a heightened level of sensitivity and quality of sources would generally be required for inclusion, Off2riorob (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If something is truly private, we won't find it in prominent reliable sources. Like it or not, personal information becomes public when it is widely published. Wnt (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we live in a mass media world and there are hundreds of thousands of blogs, papers of varying standards, even if some of those report on unconfirmed personal information about a living person that doesn't mean we should repeat it, does it? It is also possible to say that information is only reported in four out of four million possible locations. Off2riorob (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:FRINGE does apply if the sources are indeed rare and doubtful. Wnt (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think fringe is relevent in this case, although the reports are in tabloid and LGBT focused reports, fringe doesn't apply - would you focus on the content presented for inclusion and its relation to the BLP policy as it exists and any possible alterations considering any consensus and insights that arise from this discussion. As per the discussion and citations presented in the discussion above, what do you support adding in this case according to current BLP policy? Off2riorob (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I do see the irony here, in that what we are talking about is not sexual orientation, but rather is a person homosexual; that said WP:V and WP:UNDUE should be the guiding lights here, firstly if a cast iron source can be found for a persons sexual orientation and that persons sexual orientation is relevant to that persons notability then it should be included, otherwise it should be omitted. Under no circumstances should speculation be included, least it appears to be presented as fact. References to inclusion on lists of whatever should be avoided. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  04:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that Cook is on the "Top 50" list is undoubtable. Nobody is questioning that that's true, and when you denied that it was notable I showed otherwise. Whether the subject is actually gay is a different issue, one which we might never know the answer to. All we can do is summarize neutral sources.
 * Apparently, the term "contentious needs to be defined in the policy.   Will Beback    talk    04:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The top 50 list in itself is very low notable - it is only cited on en wikipedia after five years of existence in six articles - all of them are from previous years and are now dead links. Yes, I agree the term "contentious" and what that is in relation to living people is part of this issue - is it contentious to report in an encyclopedic biography on a living persons sexual orientation when it is very weakly asserted in tabloid and LGBT publications and the blogsphere (although not reliable the blogsphere weight gets reported in wiki reliable sources giving an inference of additional weight) when the claims are unconfirmed by the living subject of the article and only reportedly claimed by anonymous sources ? IMO  it is contentious and as such is a violation of current BLP policy. Off2riorob (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The deadlinks are irrelevant. The number of WP mentions is not particularly significant either - we based notability on reporting in secondary sources, not on coverage in Wikipedia. No one is citing tabloids or blogs, so that's a straw man argument. Getting back to the essential fact, the subject's inclusion in the list has been widely reported and no one has issued any denials.   Will Beback    talk    05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Never - if a person has publically declared a sexual orientation, we can include it. If the person has not declared it himself or herself, we have no business repeating the speculation of others on what is essentially a personal and private matter. Lady  of  Shalott  04:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? The source is irrelevant, only what the person says (or doesn't say) matters? Absolutely not. The OJ Simpson article contains speculation that he committed murder even though he was acquitted because it is clearly relevant to his notability. If we only relied on what Mr Simpson said about himself, I imagine the article would be much, much duller. We can rely on reliable sources, even if they directly contradict what the living person says, so long as the source is reliable. (In this case, of course, the subject has never publicly spoken one way or the other.) In fact, traditionally Wikipedia eschews primary sources: "Colin Ferguson is not a murderer. (Source: Colin Ferguson)" would be highly dubious indeed. --69.165.195.59 (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, OJ was acquitted of criminal murder because a jury found the prosecution had not proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but he was held liable for wrongful death because a jury found the plaintiffs had proved the case by a preponderance of evidence; both juries may have been correct, fairly applying different standards of proof to the same evidence. Otherwise I agree with you, I just wouldn't have chosen murderers (or other felons) as examples.TVC 15 (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My earlier comment of never was made with a limited view in mind and I would like to expand/clarify it. Wikipedia should never decide that someone is gay.  I don't care if we get a letter from the president, the prime minister, and the pope saying that Joe Schmoe is gay.  We cannot definitively state that the person is gay unless they have stated that they are gay.  If there is a case similar to what occurred with Clay Aiken, where there is widespread media speculation, Wikipedia can report on the speculation.  Wikipedia must maintain neutrality and should not include information to support the viewpoint that the person is gay.   When I earlier read the RFC, I read it to say "When is speculation a reliable source on someone's sexual orientation"  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  04:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that an encyclopaedia to repeat this type of speculation is just wrong. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  05:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you if the speculation is from a tabloid such as TMZ or the like. If there is widespread speculation, the issue has become a notable aspect of the person's life.  Wikipedia should mention it.  I think the best way to do so is to address the issue with a basis on the person's comments.  I.e. Joe Schmoe responded to speculation on his sexual orientation with "I am not and never have been gay" or something similar.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's correct.   Will Beback    talk    06:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Speculation has no place in a factual setting such as WP. In the case of this type of speculation, even less so. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  06:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference is between having Wikipedia editors speculating on their own, and Wikipedia editors reporting speculation in reliable sources. Sources legitimately speculate on numerous possibilities in this world, from the chances of a meltdown at a nuclear reactor, to the path of a Hurricane, to the possibility that a politician will enter a campaign. Reporting on this type of material shouldn't be given excess weight, but it'd be weird to totally ignore matters that have received extensive coverage in reliable sources.   Will Beback    talk    06:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, Wikipedia editors have no business speculating. Once the speculation has been widely reported it can be included if it is not given undue weight.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  12:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep out of the article, per WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." This is policy, ladies and gentlemen. -- J N  466  12:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * what does "confirmed" mean? I suspect it means: confirmed by the subject.  That is the standard we require for categories, but it is not required for article text, nor do I think it should be.  If we go too far in that direction, we allow the content of articles to be determined by what people say about themselves.  This approach, in general, is hardly consistent with NPOV.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * regardless you cannot deny that being in the top50 of out magazine is not an act of recognition that should go unmentioned. Him being considered to be a top 50 gay does not mean that our article says he is gay, all it says is that out magazine considers him gay or important to gay people. many of these lists will include people that are straight but considered important to the LGBT demographic/movement and in any case us omitting reliable sources published material is original research and we cannot do that.Gtroy (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for BLP policy update

 * - Contentious personal claims such as sexual orientation and religious affiliation should not be included in the body of BLP articles without comment and or verification from the living subject or other clarified or verifiable sources. (anonymous assertions would not support inclusion) - weight of reporting is also to be considered extremely carefully in regard to such contentious content, if high quality uninvolved sources report on the claims (or related claims, such as topic focused publications unrequested awards given that assert such sexual orientation) then inclusion may well be acceptable. Such contentious content requires consensus to include, no consensus defaults to exclude.  - Off2riorob (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I could support such an addition, however I would propose the following
 * Contentious personal claims such as sexual orientation, religious or political affiliation should only be included in BLP articles with comment and or verification from the living subject. (anonymous assertions would not support inclusion).
 * my reading of your wording is that if enough people speculate it is ok to include, which I don't agree with. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  04:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering an alternative. My position is that if enough quality (independent of the topic focus) reliable externals report on the claims, then with attribution (if there is clarified and verifiable (not anonymous attribution) is available, there may well be a case for inclusion of a comment - if the addition is disputed then consensus to include will be required. Off2riorob (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If this proposal is intended for the policy then it should be proposed on the policy talk page, not buried in a long thread about an individual case.   Will Beback    talk    05:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed it would be better to be moved to WT:BLP, as for Off2riorob's comment, I think that it should not matter who claims what in this area of someone's personal life, unless the person themselves comments and or confirms it, then speculation or gossip has no place in an encyclopaedia. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  05:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * One issue is that religion and sexual orientation may or may not be contentious depending on the specific context. For example, the governor of Pakistan's Punjab province was recently assassinated by an Islamic bodyguard for opposing Pakistan's blasphemy law, and the murder was widely celebrated by Islamist advocates of Sharia.  I think we would hesitate to publish anything that poses a serious risk of getting someone killed.  In contrast, Anderson Cooper is a public figure with a published autobiography and lives in New York and one of his fellow anchors at CNN recently came out and nothing happened.  The Islamists who killed the Pakistani governor might also try to kill AC for being gay, but they would already try to do that simply because he is American, so it doesn't add much risk.  Another issue is the extent to which someone is a public figure, and even why; for example, Jodie Foster became a public figure involuntarily as a child actor, but has tried to guard her privacy to the extent possible in that profession.  Tim Cook was likewise very private, though he may now become a public figure as CEO of one of the world's most valuable and famous companies.  Policies may arise by inductive reasoning from specific cases, but may be difficult to apply by deductive reasoning to other cases, so it isn't obvious whether these two subjects should be singled out for an official policy.TVC 15 (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: '''Claims about sexual, political or religious orientation of any lving person can not be based on speculation, but must be reliably sourced as actual statements of fact. Indirect claims can not be based on opinions of any person or organization.''' Short. Collect (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems simple and to the point. I can support this addition to the policy. Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Had Wikipedia then existed with such a policy, it would have prevented any reference being made to Liberace's homosexuality until his death. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not informed on details of liberace's life story, but there may well have been a case to not report on his speculated sexuality if thats what it was. Perhaps your correct though, it was to avoid possible censorship in highly notable cases that I added the "clause" - weight of reporting is also to be considered extremely carefully in regard to such contentious content, if high quality uninvolved sources report on the claims (or related claims, such as topic focused publications unrequested awards given that assert such sexual orientation) then inclusion may well be acceptable. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Religious" and "sexual" should be considered separately. We could more easily analyze our options were we focussing on one at a time, and policy need not be identical for the two. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I promise if this policy is adopted to make it my duty to remove all text implying or suggesting that a BLP subject is straight / heterosexual / fancies people of the opposite sex, without a source explicitly and definitely stating that they are in fact heterosexual. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are forseeing problems with such an addition in regards to your "promise" would you please link to some of the content that you would consider removing so that it can be discussed. Thanks. (O2rr out and about account) - Gettingit5 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to pick one example, more or less at random, we should certainly have to remove from Michael Bloomberg the claim that "is currently romantically linked with former New York state banking superintendent Diana Taylor". A romantic link clearly implies he is heterosexual, which is a claim about his sexual orientation, but there is no statement of fact anywhere cited to support it. He may have previously married and had children but as with Luke Evans, we can't assume that a previous sexual orientation has continued in the absence of a statement to that effect. In fact we ought really to play safe and delete the names and genders of any spouses of anyone who is married in a jurisdiction which only allows opposite sex partners to marry, since that is a clear implied claim about their sexual orientation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't wait, just remove the nonsense now. John lilburne (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The nonsense, just in case anyone has not yet worked it out, is the policy proposals made above. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing a comparison or that the proposed policy addition would have any effect at all on the content at that BLP - Bloomberg divorced Brown and is currently romantically linked with former New York state banking superintendent Diana Taylor - those two people seem to be in a relationship - which at least one of them has commented on? I don't see any unverified claims of sexual orientation? please be little more specific so we can get a consensus position on this. Sam, being a bit pointy and labeling good faith attempts to improve the project as nonsense are not very helpful, please attempt to find a solution to this repeated time sink and disruptive issue. Instead of simply attacking and creating a battlefield, what are your suggestions to improve the policy addition. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me explain it to you again and I'll put it in big letters to make my meaning perfectly clear. Claiming someone is heterosexual is a claim about their sexual orientation And claiming includes implying, assuming, presuming, writing as though it was obvious, etc. This proposal is drawn up to oppose the assumed evil of statements implying homosexuality on the part of BLP subjects who do not publicly discuss their sexual orientation. If implemented, then statements implying heterosexuality on the part of BLP subjects who do not publicly discuss their sexual orientation will be treated in exactly the same way. The statement that a man is romantically linked to a woman is one which implies heterosexuality; the policy requires this implication to be stated directly as fact but the New York Times does not do so. It does not say "Michael Bloomberg, who is openly heterosexual". My suggestion is that policy at the moment is fine and mentioning that Tim Cook was on a list of powerful LGBT people but does not discuss his sexual orientation is also fine. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now let me explain. For several years my male neighbour used to have a male friend call round most evenings, that didn't make him homosexual, despite the rumours from the other neighbour that they were an item, and despite the fact that we never saw him with a girlfriend. Then five years ago a woman started calling around most evenings, that doesn't make him bisexual. Three years ago he announced that they were getting married, that doesn't make him heterosexual, though it does suggest a stronger possibility. BTW throughout the intervening years his male friend still comes around quite often, sometimes at weekends with a child, sometimes not. Unless my neighbour announces that he's heterosexual, bisexual, gay, a lesbian, or whatever, his sexuality is unknown and any comments on it pure gossip and speculation. John lilburne (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with JL here. As I've said before, we can and should implement the same policy when it comes to who someone is dating with the sex of both parties being irrelevant. This is somewhat different from whether we should allow specific comments on someone's sexual orientation from third parties. Putting someone in a list of LGBT people when there's no suggestion the person is transexual is clearly a comment on someone's sexual orientation since there's no way someone is going to be on such a list if they don't fit in to such a category (unless they're a honourary member). Of course some other organisation can categorise a person in which way they want, it doesn't have to be the way the person will categorise themselves. But the question remains whether we should mentioned the way some other organisation or person categorises someone when it comes to sexual orientation and other personal aspects (and just to be clear, I'm not referring to wikipedia categories here). In any case, who someone is dating is different and is not a direct comment on someone's sexuality. For example, presuming we take heterosexual to mean nearly exclusively attracted to the opposite sex or gender and homosexual to mean nearly exclusively attracted to the same sex or gender, both definitions which are commonly used; the only thing someone frequently (although in the MB case we only have 2 people) dating the opposite sex tells us is they are probably not homosexual. But even that is way too simplistic since many people find such labels don't really fit them or don't agree with the conclusions one draws. (For example, someone could have married and dated a woman but still consider themselves homosexual.) In other words, SB's conclusions on MB are rather flawed in the first instance. Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misunderstood - this debate is not about categorisation, which runs to a very strict standard of requiring self-identification (as it should). This is about all text possibly referring to a living person, and would prevent any indirect comment or implication of sexual orientation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose off2riorob's suggestion. Contentious claims about a living person do not belong in their articles, period.  But if RS cover something and it's notable, then it may be included.  There are no valid reasons to create special rules here.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Draft text
At Off2riorob's request, here is a suggestion for some text for the article. That sticks to the known facts, relies on a highly reliable source, and avoids any speculation.  Will Beback   talk    04:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In 2011, Out magazine placed Cook at the top of its "Power 50" list of the most influential LGBT people. Cook himself has not commented on his sexual orientation.

I can not believe any editor would say "rumors started to spread that he was gay." is remotely near a reliable source for such a claim in a BLP. Further that it is insufficient to list a person on a list of gays on the basis of such rumours (yes Will, such a list is precisely what I mean at the ArbCom discussion - I suggest that adding a person to such a list is and should be verboten on Wikipedia without extremely strong factual sources). In short: Support O2RRs position. Oppose strongly Will's wording above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per comments above, this has no place in his entry, it is of no relevance to his notability. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  05:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the source itself (a blog-style editorial) refers to all this echo-chamber speculation as "rumors", making this a questionable source per WP:NEWSORG. AV3000 (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose - Some of the content from the provided supporting Atlantic citation that imo shows why the claim shouldn't be included with the reporting that we have currently. - "Top Apple executives claim to be supportive, but worry that if Tim Cook comes out, the public perception of Apple could be harmed" - "To Be the Most Powerful Gay Man in Tech, Cook Needs to Come Out" - "it wasn't until this year that rumors started to spread that he was gay." - "Would an openly gay CEO -- not a bad product, not a flawed program -- hurt the house that Jobs built?" - all of its what if? type speculation and it is on the back of the exact same level of confirmation that the "Out" magazine added him to the list in the first place, this is a clear case of circular confirmation. Off2riorob (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added some more sources to show this is a notable and widely reported issue.   Will Beback    talk    05:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose - Only notable if one goes back to Apple trolls in the days when they the rainbow logo. John lilburne (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose - trivial content, akin to "so when did you stop hitting your wife?". That Cook appears to be very private over this matter lends absolute weight ot the idea of not recording meaningless gossip. --Errant (chat!) 10:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of all the comments so far, I find this one the most difficult to understand. First of all, wife-beating is not trivial, it is in fact a felony.  Second, the "So when did you..." question is a classic Loaded question, nothing like that is involved here.  Third, so far the sources calling Tim "private over this matter" (your phrase) are at the same level of WP:RS as those saying he's gay, so if you accept one you end up accepting both.  Why can't we just wait a week and see what (if anything) he or Apple says, and then decide?TVC 15 (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * question is a classic Loaded question, nothing like that is involved here; yes it is. We can't record that he is alleged to be gay (sigh), but we can report that he got listed on a list of LGBT people... same fallacy. --Errant (chat!) 09:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * support although really I would prefer to wait at least a week for the real people involved to formulate what (if anything) they want to say. Please, at this particular moment I hope Steve Jobs will be allowed to enjoy the accolades and limelight that he has earned, there will be a time to talk about other people at Apple but right now nobody wants to distract from what Steve has accomplished.  BTW, though I don't presume to speak for any of the persons involved, I would guess that Steve already knew Tim was gay and if Steve commented at all it would be his trademark phrase, "Not a big deal."  Tim would probably be too busy working on the supply chain to say anything.TVC 15 (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How on earth does any of that (aside from being speculative rubbish) have relevance? --Errant (chat!) 11:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, am trying (without success) to reconcile your "speculative rubbish" with WP:CIVIL, but the short answer is we've been requested to comment and the policies involved are WP:RS and WP:BLP.TVC 15 (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And your comment relates to none of them, and is an example of exactly the sort of thing we should not be considering! --Errant (chat!) 12:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The links in this example seem very bloggy to me. To support this, the sources have to be better.  Furthermore, I believe that the way it is written right now makes it seem like he is gay.  The comment doesn't even address the fact that it is only speculation.  Finally, since he has not commented on the fact himself, and his page is so bare right now, I believe it is impossible to report on the issue without giving it undue weight.  Focus on other improvements to the page first.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  12:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Addition would violate WP:BLPGOSSIP. -- J N  466  13:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia is not a blog, it is not a trashy tabloid, and most importantly, it isn't an appropriate arena for sections of the LBGT communities to pursue a campaign to 'out' people on the basis of rumour. Given the harm that has been done to LBGD individuals in the past as a result of such rumour-mongering, one might hope for a little more restraint. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The content of the sources militates against inclusion. Too much rumor, anonymous sources, and political/journalistic introspection.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Given the amount of media attention this has received, not mentioning it leaves a gaping hole in the article. Presenting it this way avoids a WP:BLP violation by sticking to what is notable and in reliable sources. I would also add that Cook didn't show up for the photo shoot for Out.-- Irn (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What "gaping hole" is that?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The gaping hole being that he has been hailed in reliable sources as the most powerful gay person in tech, the most powerful gay person in the world, and the most influential LGBT individual. -- Irn (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The first reference does indeed sound like it's twisting around on the hook trying to do anything but present its facts about Cook as true. By itself, it would fail.  But the next reference, the Herald-Sun reference, is pretty unambiguous.  I'm persuaded it's the kind of RS we want. Wnt (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This episode provides more evidence of why WP probably should not have any BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose - This is either complete speculation or someone knows something that Cook is declining to say publicly. In other words, it is totally gossip, and possibly outing. How ironic that it is Out magazine doing that to someone. WP has no business participating in gossip or outing. WP:NOTATABLOID really needs to be a blue link. Lady  of  Shalott  01:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That Out named him number 1 in their "Power 50" is neither speculation nor outing nor gossip. It is an incontrovertible fact. -- Irn (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If a magazine had slandered him, that they had written the slanderous comment would also be incontrovertible fact but would that mean that we have to cover it. NO. The point is that another publication has been willing to make a claim that we would not be allowed to make here. We do not backdoor that claim into the encyclopedia through attribution simply because another publication has made it. That violates the spirit of BLP right down to its core.Griswaldo (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Has the subject been slandered?   Will Beback    talk    13:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP does not say This policy only applies to slander. Sorry, Will -- the question you ask is not what counts. The question is Does this violate WP:BLP?    And the consensus on this issue appears as clear as possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, I never said that he was slandered. My point was a hypothetical one, used in comparison. We do not allow end runs around our policies by way of attribution, in cases where the matter is a sensitive BLP concern. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Irn, are you deliberately missing the point? No, it is not speculation that they listed him, but for them to have listed him, they are engaging in gossip and possibly outing. There is no reason whatsoever that we should engage in repeating gossip (which is not necessarily the same thing as slander). Lady  of  Shalott  15:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that those of us who support the inclusion and those opposed are viewing this from very different perspectives. From my point of view, we are neither engaging in outing nor gossip, nor are we even implying that Cook is gay. Rather, we are trying to make sure that his article covers notable aspects of his life, including all of the attention he has received for his sexuality even though he himself refuses to comment on it. -- Irn (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We are of course engaging in outing if we cover this. The idea that we're simply reporting that someone else has outed him is hogwash. If the information is in our entry it's in our entry, attributed or not. If you respect his privacy and respect the fact that this is gossip that he doesn't want to answer to, then you'll not reprint the gossip. It's that easy Irn.Griswaldo (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The outing (if that's what you consider it) has already been done and covered by multiple reliable sources. For us to ignore it is to pretend that it never happened or that it's not important. -- Irn (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. The proposed wording is neutrally phrased, factual and well sourced. There is no shame in being described as influential. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Absolutely, 100% NO. We do not allow claims about living subject that otherwise would not be printed in the encyclopedia in through the back door simply by attributing them. Doing so would set a very dangerous precedent.Griswaldo (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The amount of press coverage that the topic has received makes the speculation on his sexual orientation notable in and of itself. To not cover the speculation when correspondents from The Atlantic and Reuters are is pretending that the speculation does not exist. Such speculation is clearly notable because it colours the media's coverage of him and therefore his own actions.--69.165.195.59 (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a roundabout way to include a claim that we're not supposed to be including directly.  It's also likely to be an undue weight problem to mention it at all. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That edit is exactly what our rules encourage. But, based on all the opposes, the consensus may be that our rules should be changed so that info in the article must pass the same hurdle as we require of our categories. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, the comments here assert that contentious personal claims such as sexual orientation should not be included without comment and or verification from the living subject or other clarified or verifiable sources. The dispute here is a gay publication gave an award to the subject as top gay businessman) and there is clearly no consensus to include (which imo we need to include such disputed contentious personal claims) - the award asserts sexual orientation and they have no support for their giving the award to the living subject apart from a Gawker anonymous source, so BLP asserts "privacy" and a "cautious approach" imo clearly keeps this out even if other low quality tabloid sources and LGBT focused publications have repeated it. Off2riorob (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the gay publication in question (Out), which is the root source of most of the other citations being mentioned, describes itself as a "A gay and lesbian perspective on style, entertainment, fashion, the arts, politics, culture, and the world at large"; it's not exactly a high-quality news source with the pedigree of, say, the NYTimes, which has never published a monthly "nipple count" of images contained within (grin). AV3000 (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A) Gawker is used as a source for hundreds of BLPs. The article in question is not anonymous. B) The Atlantic is neither a "low quality tabloid source" nor an "LGBT focused publication". C) There appears to be a trend towards suppressing or censoring material on homosexuality. I assume that the next step would be to refuse to report scandals regarding same-sex activities, because they imply something about the subjects' sexuality.   Will Beback    talk    04:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the source of the claim that is anonymous.(you are aware of that, aren't you Will?) I think the community is fully agreed that Gawker as the origin of a contentious anonymous claims about a living person is not reliable, however much it is currently used on the project. Assertions of a trend to suppress or censor homosexual content is unsupportable completely. There is a trend - and that is to err on the side of caution in regard to assertions about living people, that trend has got nothing to do with homosexuality. Off2riorob (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) A) If Gawker (self-description: "Gawker - Today's gossip is tomorrow's news") is being used as a source for BLPs, that's nothing but regrettable and should be corrected. B) The Atlantic published this Gawker/Out-based item as online/blog speculation, not in their editorially well-regarded print edition. C) I've seen no such general trend in several years of patrolling and editing LGBT articles. AV3000 (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * AV3000, regarding (C), I wish that you had followed O2rr's advice stated example and not resurrected the AC debate, especially at the same time as this article; AC is a public figure with a published autobiography, and WP:RS report that he's gay, but you seem to demand "elaboration" as a new additional criterion, and that creates an appearance of being part of a campaign or trend to suppress. Out can be a WP:RS, but they also have a section expressly titled "gossip," and currently searching the Out website for "Tim Cook" returns mostly their Popnography site the title of which expressly includes gossip.  One of the reasons I would prefer to wait is to see if the story moves from the gossip section and blogs into serious news articles.  The "Power 50" list might qualify on its own, so if we must decide right now then I still agree with Will, but I think we may see more serious sources next week or next month.TVC 15 (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * O2rr's advice to AV3000 - Off2riorob (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) TVC, O2RR actually suggested on his talk page that I open a separate report for AC. And, although I'm not surprised that the AC case has been discussed in the past, I wasn't aware of that. And I don't regret doing so because I believe the two cases are closely related instances of a general issue. AV3000 (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In Germany Tim Cook is mentioned in LGBT media as a gay person.
 * Queer:Tim Cook (german) 92.252.96.171 (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether he is gay or not is not really stated clearly by his ranking on a gay magazine, after all LGBT includes intersex, questioning, non-declared, straight allies, and PFLAG people too. It is citable and is all over the news and is worth mentioning what the reliable sources have stated about him. WE don't have to say anything we can just quote. Furthermore I suggest we follow a patter similar to what was done with the Anderson Cooper article, IMHO we need to take NO:OriginalResearch more seriously by not overzealously interpreting BLP. Him being gay or not is not a big deal, it is not libelous in any way, no one is suing out and no one would hold us accountable for aggregating an interesting fact reported on this guy but a plethora of reliable sources.Gtroy (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From the German wikipedia article - Cook is openly homosexual and lives in California. - supported by this outmagazine power 50 award - a claim presented as if fact that is unsupported by the supporting citation. What other open wikis do is not something we follow neither are their standards of reporting something that reflects our standards. Also - the fact that no one is suing is not a reason to include either. As for your "LGBT includes intersex, questioning, non-declared, straight allies, and PFLAG people too." - that may well be in some places but has nothing to do with Cooks BLP here. The interesting fact is what it boils down to - a homosexual publication without any confirmed evidence has given number one gay person award to this living subject. The simple inference is that the subject is gay. I would say looking at it - this is an attempt to either out a living person or force a living person to discuss his sexuality by Gawker (I gather they have a dispute with Apple inc or Cook himself) and out magazine (a LGBT magazine). Anyways, its not encyclopedic, its sexual titillation and baseless assertions better suited to the red-tops and LGBT focused publications - the best comment I have seen here is that the focus on his Bio should be his business and career history - go improve and expand that. The time sink I was hoping to resolve was to stop this being a repeat issue and add something to the policy that users could see clearly that lets them know that such speculation about subjects sexuality does not belong in en wikipedia BLP articles. - unless that is that the speculation is of such notability that the BBC is reporting on it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This discussion, and similar ones, might be more productive if the words "sexual" and "sexuality" were not used interchangeably with the term "sexual orientation". Unless I've missed something, there is no "sexual titillation" to be found here here any more than there is in a passage implying that an article subject is straight. I'd also suggest that, contrary to the apparent efforts of some editors on the project, Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia in which certain basic human attributes dare not speak their names. The 1911 Britannica is already online and hews to that standard. Rivertorch (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The sexual tittilation is the speculating if someones orientated towards men or women when they have made no comment about such orientation themselves and where that persons notability is nothing to do with whatever their sexual orientation is - I don't see your point - "basic human attributes are covered all over the project, this discussion is about what kind of inclusion levels we give to speculation and unconfirmed non verified claims and reports about someones sexuality in BLP articles and to what level BLP supports inclusion of such reporting what are the standards of our reporting, the levels of Gawker and out magazine or are we to strive for the quality standards of the NYT and the BBC? (O2rr out and about account). Gettingit5 (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose per AndyTheGrump and Griswaldo's comments, and per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:UNDUE. Totally contrary to the spirit of BLP, and his orientation (whatever it may be) is not relevant to his notability. Ibanez100 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support The statement as presented is entirely factual and documented and does not encroach on anything not previously widely known. --Sebcartwright (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sebcartwright, Wikipedia does not add gossip to its biographies, nor do we violate a person's right to privacy by adding irrelevant personal material. We have many biographies of people who might be staight or gay, and we do not normally report sexual orientation unless the subject has made a public statement and the fact is somehow relevant to notability.
 * We report that Lady Gaga is bisexual because she has said so in a Rolling Stone interview, and she is known for her LGBT advocacy. Privacy is not an issue. The fact is verifiable, and it is relevant to her notability.
 * Contrast this with Elana Kagan. Her article says, "Kagan has never married and has no children", and nothing more.  There is no speculation whatsoever about her sexual orientation, though if you search Google you can find plenty. Jehochman Talk 00:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

===Media on Apple CEO Tim Cook's Sexuality: 'Come Out, Come Out...'=== I read about him now being "the most powerful gay man in the world" in The Week which in turn was reporting on Reuters.com article about the media's hypocrisy of not reporting it as if a gay man running the "largest and most important company n the world" should have his being gay as part of his profile because the stigma of gayness is so last year. So here is the media discussing why and how his being gay is portrayed or not by media outlets. It seems very strange that wikipedia would choose to suppress this information only because he hasn't announced it from the mountaintop. It seems a sentence about his sexuality, and the media double-standard of the mainstream press avoiding the subject, merits inclusion. Somestudy (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC) - Article here:http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/25/idUS422760388920110825 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somestudy (talk • contribs) 07:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC) - WP:BANNED LGBT focused sockmaster User:Benjiboi - Off2riorob (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BLP please.  It is not up to Wikipedia editors to "out" someone who is not openly out. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even more, there's no need to make personal sexuality into an issue for a person unless they are making it so themselves. -- Avanu (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The principle is that we follow the sources. There are multiple independent reliable sources which have freely discussed the issue of Tim Cook, his sexuality, and his attitude to publicity about his sexuality. Some editors seem to have a compulsion to distort all normal practice to breaking point in order to argue for no mention of this topic, which is frankly becoming ludicrous. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In the case at hand, your position attracts scant support. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That position has received plenty of support. But that support has been drowned out by persistent opposition.   Will Beback    talk    21:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Persistent opposition" by well over a dozen editors - whilst your position appears supported by fewer than half as many.  I suspect that the "persistent" bit is shown by the number of edits by a single person promoting inclusion of such material -- say more than two dozen posts by a single person would appear, to me, to show a great deal of "persistence" indeed. Cheers.  Collect (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What matters is not how much support the position has received; what matters is the strength of the argument. Pointing out that more people agree with you does nothing to advance a discussion. -- Irn (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

* I looked to see which other main media outlets have discussed this and found these, with the articles' title; Forbes (business magazine) - "Tim Cook's Sexuality Has No Relevance As He Takes The Apple Reins", The Guardian - "Apple's Tim Cook isn't the only gay person in the IT village," ZDNet - "The sexuality of CEOs is a dull subject however...", DailyTech.com - "Meet Apple's New CEO, Tim Cook", The Atlantic - "To Be the Most Powerful Gay Man in Tech, Cook Needs to Come Out", "Reuters" - "Why I'm talking about Tim Cook's sexuality‎", BNet (CBS) - "Why Apple CEO Tim Cook’s Sexual Identity Isn’t — or Shouldn’t Be — News", Washington Blade (Gay news) - "Apple CEO Urged To Come Out As Gay", International Business Times - "Is New Apple CEO Tim Cook Gay?", Columbia Journalism Review - "Why Apple CEO Tim Cook’s Sexuality Is News". Reuters - "Tim Cook Is Now The Most Powerful Gay Man In The World", Wall Street Journal - "‘It Gets Better’: Tech Firms Step Up for Gay Teens", New York Observer - "Tim Cook Is A New Power Gay," "OutsideTheBeltway.com" - "It Is News That Apple’s New CEO Is Gay?" Somestudy (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC) - WP:BANNED LGBT focused sockmaster User:Benjiboi - Off2riorob (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)