Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive155

Ofei Sakyi
Hi....this entry feels more like a CV than an encyclopedic article. As a former employee of Activision I also know that the claim that he 'created' DJ Hero is completely false.

I love Wikipedia but articles such as this are not good for the site's integrity.

Many thanks

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtomoke (talk • contribs) 11:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was the same biography as already discussed at AFD, with the same problems described in the AFD discussion. I've speedily deleted it. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusations of paid advocacy
I've found an editor who has, in at least three separate fora (including his userpage, edit summaries, etc) stated or strongly insinuated that certain living persons, journalists, or others are paid advocates or paid lobbyists for a cause. No evidence is provided, and the claims generally strike me as dubious. Is this a violation of the BLP policy? Is is borderline? Does it merit a warning to the user? I'm just wondering if I'm overreacting. Homunculus (duihua) 21:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's hard to comment without diffs. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You may wish to email the user name to admin and have them look into it. Posting his name here may violate policies. Provide links to statements if you wish.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As it happens the user is already facing scrutiny for his behavior in the associated namespace. Would you recommend sending the information to the admins already involved? Homunculus (duihua) 22:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

christian astu twasam
i am the brother of Christian Atsu Twasam and the article on him is not up to date and he and I has decided to rewrite the article our self and publish it. We do not know the one who wrote this and want it removed. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treborina (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Provided you cite reliable sources for any new content, and do not remove content simply because you don't like it, you are free to edit the article yourself. You can start by editing what is already there. We don't delete articles in advance because someone is planning to put up a new version. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

nita talbot
nita talbot played sidna in the one of the 1958 ????? episodes of gunsmoke....she is listed in the credits with dabbs greer as jonas and florida friebus as mrs. meggs.....at first i thought she was peggy castle  ..but not....remarkable resemblence    ...please do her the honor of updating....... thanx    gorjus george... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.146.246 (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Gerard Gallant
The wikipedia article on Gerard Gallant is potentially offensive to Gerard. Here is a web site with details http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/15/gerard-dont-call-me-turkey-gallant-joins-habs-as-assistant-coach/

The nickname shown in the article should be deleted as potentially offensive to the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallosforme (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed the nickname as unsourced. Although I should note that if the nickname is verifiable and significant, it would likely be retained in the article even if Gallant doesn't like it. Conforming to BLP does not equate conforming to the subject's expectations. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Joe Paterno / Mike McQueary / Penn State sex abuse scandal
✅

I am a volunteer mediator at Dispute resolution noticeboard. During a recent mediation I recently became aware of an ongoing pattern of BLP violations going on at Joe Paterno. See here and here for details. This involves the Penn State sex abuse scandal. The main BLP violation is continued unsourced accusations in Wikipedia's voice that assistant coach Mike McQueary failed to report the abuse to the police.

Another possible BLP violation (I am less sure of this one) involves head coach Joe Paterno. He is also accused in Wikipedia's voice of failing to report the abuse to the state police without qualifying the accusation with the fact that he did report it to the head of the University police. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * IMHO, "Paterno claims" still fall under BLP as they definitely impact living people - and any claims which can have balancing additions should include the balance, no matter what the article is about. You are on solid ground. Collect (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am removing the material per WP:BLPREMOVE. BLP-violating editors are edit warring, but no action is required on that. If they keep it up they will reach 4RR. (Per WP:NOT3RR, edits that remove unsourced contentious material that violates WP:BLP are not counted as reverts for the purposes of WP:3RR.) See Talk:Joe Paterno and User talk:Guy Macon. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What you failed to say in this thread is that there were 5 citations. It was cited and as such not a BLP violation as you continue to assert. As such, I plan on making a report to ANI when i get home for continuous misrepresentation of BLP and misuse of warning templates. JOJ Hutton  20:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no citation for the claim -- in Wikipedia's voice -- that Mike McQueary failed to call the police. What we have citations for are:


 * [A] McQueary claims to have talked to police.


 * [B] Campus and borough police say they have no record of that.


 * [C] The grand jury that charged the other two with failure to report found McQueary's testimony to credible and did not charge him withfailure to report.


 * I invited the editors who kept re-inserting the accusation in Wikipedia's voice to report at least A and B above, but they declined and insisted on retaining a clear BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Guy-Macon, it does appear that you are misusing the BLP passage about removing unsourced negative information to justify removal of sourced negative information. I suggest that you reconsider.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You have a valid point. Another editor who felt the same way has edited the page to re-insert one of the names and I told him on the talk page that I strongly approved. I consider this to be WP:BRD at work - keeping out the BLP violation while undoing what I now agree was me cutting too much. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Now what should we do about your misuse of warning templates and your inappropriate removal of talk page comments?-- JOJ Hutton  23:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What "we" can do is to [1] encourage you to post your complaints in an appropriate forum instead of posting material having nothing to do with BLPs on the BLP noticeboard (one would think that after 30,000 edits you would have figured out where to post a complaint), [2] inform you that you were properly warned for your violation of WP:BLP, and [3] Apologize for the accidental deletion that I made at 20:52 and immediately attempted to revert, only to discover that a sharp-eyed editor had undone my error at 20:55. I apologize for delaying your post by three minutes. I assure you that it was not intentional and that it won't happen again. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Accidental? Now I've heard everything. You left a detailed edit summery. That's no accident, its disruptive. What you need to do is stop acting like everyone is doing something wrong but you. Noone agreed with you on those edits. You deliberately lied on this thread about the reliable sources, and your "warnings" were nothing more than using talk page warnings to win a revert war, since there was never a violation of BLP, since there were 5 reliable sources. Your edit summaries were telling as well. From your first edit, it was obvious that you were intending to edit war as much as you wanted to by attempting to "remind" other editors that reverting BLP is exempt from 3RR, despite the fact that there was no BLP violation. You were even "keeping score" and . All signs of a tendentious editor.-- JOJ  Hutton  03:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please WP:AGF while I WP:IAD.


 * Re: your claim that "there were 5 reliable sources" (the only part of the above that belongs here) are you claiming that five reliable sources support the claim that Mike McQueary failed to call the police (the specific BLP-violating edit you were warned for)? Evidence, please. Please quote the exact wording where even one of those sources supports that claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at the sources in question here, but I do want to comment on what Nomoskedasticity said above. If what Guy Macon says is correct — and I'm not saying that it is or is not — then the sources stop just short of what is being specifically asserted in the article. WP:BLPREMOVE does not merely prohibit unsourced contentious allegations about living persons, it says "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." (Emphasis added.) If Guy's analysis is correct, his position on this is in no way a misuse of WP policy. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to add that although I have not looked at everything Guy and others said in this overly contentious discussion, most of what I saw supported Guy's views. The sourcing for the material in the Paterno article was non-existent last time I checked. Sticking in a source that doesn't support the assertion doesn't make the assertion sourced. My favorite argument in favor of including the negative material was it was sourced elsewhere in the article, although it was never clear where that was. A whole lot of WP:SYNTHESIS and misrepresentations going on.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement in the article was that no one on the staff contacted police. Apparently McQuery is the subject that was "allegedly" the under the BLP violation because, according to Guy, none of the sources supported the statement that he did not contact police. But this article was one of the sources, and although McQuery "says" he contacted police, it clearly says they according to police, McQuery did not contact them. So therefore not BLP as it was sourced.-- JOJ Hutton  11:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "According to the police, he didn't contact them" is not a source for "he didn't contact the police", since in this case whether the word of the police is accurate is disputed. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And exactly where in the source, does it say that what the police said is disputed? Sounds like your version of original research. The passage, as it was written, had a source backing up the claim that at least McQueary did not contact police.-- JOJ Hutton  23:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jojhutton that the souce does say he didn't contact the police, although any material would have to be carefully worded and include McQueary's statement that he did contact the police (also in source) - maybe that's what Ken means by "disputed"? That said, why would we want to include what McQueary didn't do in an article about Paterno?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that McQueary was the subject of Guy's alleged BLP violation until after the reverts. The sentence only said "none of these officials". His assertions always had been that it wasn't sourced, which was never true. There were sources. He also asserted that it was a BLP violation, which if sourced, is of course not a BLP violation. That did not stop him from unilaterally adding warnings to user talk pages to anyone who disagreed that it was a BLP violation, which of course its not, because it was and still is sourced. It was for these incorrect assertions and his tendentious attitude that I really got involved. I never said that I owned the article, like he has uncivilly accused me of. That said, the section is too long and drawn out as it is now. It should really be cut down and most of it sent to the sub article on the scandal.-- JOJ  Hutton  01:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is inaccurate to the point that it borders on fabrication. On several occasions I have asked Jojhutton to quote these alleged sources that only he can see and nobody else can find. For example, earlier in this thread I asked this:


 * "Re: your claim that "there were 5 reliable sources" (the only part of the above that belongs here) are you claiming that five reliable sources support the claim that Mike McQueary failed to call the police (the specific BLP-violating edit you were warned for)? Evidence, please. Please quote the exact wording where even one of those sources supports that claim."


 * Jojhutton has failed to quote the exact wording where any of those sources supports that claim. He has a source that would support the article saying "According to the police, he didn't contact them", but there is no source that supports the article saying "he didn't contact the police" in Wikipedia's voice as if it were an established and undisputed fact. He just keeps repeating his assertion without actually providing any evidence backing it up. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Guy's analysis above, but would not be to harsh on Jojhutton because this seems to be a case of slight wording difference, but with big differences in meaning, if that makes sense. --Mollskman (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Neither campus nor borough police received reports from McQueary about an alleged sexual assault in 2002, the departments said Wednesday.
 * State College Police Chief Tom King said McQueary didn’t make a report to his department. Penn State spokeswoman Annemarie Mountz said campus police also didn’t have any record of a report filed in 2002 by McQueary.
 * Guy is alleging that adding "none of these officials contacted police" is not enough to support that McQueary didn't contact police and is enough to receive a BLP warning. I guess anything negative, even if cited, is enough for some people to see a BLP problem. It's even sadder when it also says in the McQueary article that he did not contact police. The sources say he did not contact police. There is no record of it. If he did contact police, the sources aren't saying so.-- JOJ Hutton  02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a related question about BLP policy. The disputed passage now says "Despite the gravity of allegations against Sandusky, Paterno did not notify state police", which is fully supported by the sources. However, there is now a string of citations (45 through 49) at the end of that sentence citation, some of which are unrelated to the text they are attached to.

Cite 45 ("Police official: Paterno didn't do enough to stop abuse") fully supports the statement is attached to.

Cite 46 ("JoePa: A look back at the sex abuse scandal") fully supports the statement is attached to.

Cite 47 ("Former Penn State coach Joe Paterno's full grand jury testimony on Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse case read into the record at hearing") does not actually say that Paterno did not call the police. It does say that he did the right thing by alerting his superiors, which sort of implies that he didn't alert the police, but we already have cites 45 and 46 directly saying that.

Cite 48 ("Penn State coach Paterno praised for acting appropriately in reporting Jerry Sandusky sex abuse suspicions") also does not actually say that Paterno did not call the police. Instead it has the Attorney General praising Paterno for doing the right thing by reporting it without specifying who he reported it to.

Cite 49 ("Questions mount about Mike McQueary's account of the locker room sexual assault") Does not mention Paterno except in passing ("scandal that cost Joe Paterno [his] job").

Given the rather severe WP:OWNERSHIP shown by Jojhutton, I expect all hell breaking loose if I remove any of those cites. Is it worth it, or do orphan cites cause so little harm that the issue is best ignored? --Guy Macon (talk)


 * We shouldn't have sources that don't support the apposite material. It's misleading, and depending on what the sources say about other things, could be even more problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I removed three of the references and posted a detailed explanation on the article talk page. It should be interesting to see what kind of abuse I get this time. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Anton Z. Risan


Anton Z. Risan has already been deleted a couple of times and possibly will be again. It was recreated in October by User:Atelier-az-phootgraphy. The article currently contains the phrase "also known as Anton Dickson", sourced only to IMDB. What makes this less than a simple case is that User:Atelier-az-phootgraphy asked to be renamed to "antonZrisan". although they never completed the rename. A new account, User:AntonDickson has been adding material to the article, as well as related articles. I think this is a case of well-intentioned editing which violates our BLP and sourcing rules, but with a large dollop of COI. As all of the BLPs are gay porn performers, perhaps it is best if someone else deal with it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a smell of BLP spam here. I pruned Risan of unverified content, which left a list of his movies. Next up, the next one. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You may want to check that article again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Arieh Warshel
I think I'm at 3R, and an editor persists in turning this article into a resume--the content they add praises the subject with reference only to the subject's articles, not to secondary sources. They also removed a BLP sources tag. Some attention would be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Whatever the substantive issues are, the editor is edit-warring and will soon end up blocked. I've left a 3RR warning. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not quite that simple. Look at what the article looked like before  started editing it.  Look at  that Barrozo.ah started off with.  And look at what that content was. The editor that really did add the look-at-all-the-journal-articles content was  . By the looks of things Barrozo.ah is trying to enact what was requested by the cleanup tag that stood at the top of all of those lists. Uncle G (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also not much more complicated--that edit, in fact, drew my attention to the article and I made a quick edit to prevent someone from reverting that pruning. I was surprised, then, to see that the editor went on to not clean up the BLP--this addition is not an improvement. BTW, the article was tagged for COI. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed all unsourced material from the article. It's now fairly small.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Randy Quaid
Persistent long term addition of unsourced content, in violation of WP:BLP. IPs have been blocked for the moment, but I've requested page protection as well. Might profit from more editors reading through and copy editing. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * New sock is at it...still waiting for page protection from persistent vandalism.... 99.156.68.118 (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Elockid . 99.156.68.118 (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Enrique Peña Nieto
I am concerned about the Biography of Enrique Peña Nieto since it has become more of an attack to a living person, there is a Gaffe section on this biography and there is also a section named Televisa Peña Nieto allegations that is taken from material o sources that have not been confirmed on the authenticity of the source documents. I have removed the Gaffe section and also the Televisa Peña Nieto allegations sections but they have been restored. I think the Gaffe section should be moved to the allready polemized Political gaffe article. I would like someone to look into this bio since under my point of view certain sections do violate Wikipedia BLP policy. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiozaragoza (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There isn't a shadow of an attack on this page, or any BLP problems that I can see. Peña Nieto is a presidential candidate and like all presidential candidates has received a lot of press both negative and positive. He has recently been the focus of attention by a series of protests. Looking at other biographies of presidential it is obvious that all presidential candidate article should include the entire scope of press coverage - not just the positively angled stories.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Jarred Land
Would appreciate further input on this article, which appears to be connected to Bambi Magazine, where I've already been involved at AFD. A lot of the references aren't acceptable, and I'm on the fence as to notability, which is not much strengthened through Google search. My take is that both articles are heavy on COI, and light on sources. Observations from objective editors on the Land article sought. Thanks, 99.156.68.118 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin
Previous BLPN discussion

This article has lots of problems, but the current bone of contention is the following material:

"In 1999 he brought forward a lawsuit against Senator Orrin Hatch. The case was dismissed in DC's District Court."

It's sourced to this and this. The sentence follows on the heels of these two sentences:

"Kimberlin, the son of a lawyer, has been involved in extensive litigation over the years. By 1992, he had already filed over 100 motions and lawsuits in federal courts on his own behalf."

The article Talk page has at least two sections discussing the material. I don't think there's any consensus, but there's a lot of arguments made by a lot of editors. My objections are:
 * 1) The material isn't noteworthy. Why pick this particular lawsuit? It appears to be simply because the defendant is a senator. So what? Officials are sued by prisoners all the time, and it's no big deal. It hasn't received significant coverage to be included.
 * 2) It isn't well-sourced. The Washington Times source is a blog entry by a political editor and, although there are convoluted arguments as to its reliability, it's probably safe to admit it's at least not of any great quality as a politicized opinion piece. The other source is empty for me, but I vaguely recollect at one time there was a citation to the actual judicial opinion dismissing the suit (primary source).
 * 3) It's not the most neutral of material. The entire article is more or less an attack piece, so it's kind of hard to argue that this particular material is non-neutral, but I think the idea is to pick a suit he filed that was dismissed, meaning it had no merit.
 * 4) Stepping back, I'm not even sure why the first two sentences are there as they provide no apparent context for their relevance to anything. Why are we reporting that he's filed lots of lawsuits? We would need some coverage to show what that means. Otherwise, it kind of hangs out there as indicting him for being litigious.

It would be nice to see some more opinions expressed on the Talk page, maybe even something that coherently sets forth the arguments for and against. At the moment, it's more heat than light. I've given up as I feel as if I'm going in circles repeatedly answering why I'm against inclusion of the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nurit Peled-Elhanan
Nurit Peled-Elhanan is an Israeli academic. There is a discussion about whether a description that is being applied to the subject in the lead of the article is consistent with WP:BLP requirements. I think some input would be helpful. Please see the discussion here. Thanks.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've commented in some detail on the Talk page. Essentially, I don't think either lead is acceptable. A third alternative would far better comply with our guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

John Laurinaitis
Seems like some poorly sourced and POV stuff going into the article, but it's hard to tell where exactly the trouble starts. Hello71 (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Hinchliffe
I wrote Stephen Hinchliffe in January about a businessman who built a retail empire rapidly in the 1990s in the UK but was then failed for fraud. Recently in April, User:Sparer made a host of unverifiable edits, and was reverted. Another account, User:Hinchy0, has made similar edits this month. None of the edits are supported by sources, they mainly appear to be supporting or excusing the article subject, and I can't verify them. I don't want to WP:OWN this article and I know we have to be careful when article subjects or those connected to them try to edit pages (as appears to be happening here), so I thought I would bring it here for extra eyes and advice. Fences &amp;  Windows  13:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's one edit that touches on a lot of details, unfortunately. However, checking just two out in detail I found that the single-purpose-accounts' versions don't match what's in the newspaper articles cited.  One:  The claim of being bought out by Cameron Mackintosh (which the other editors aren't even spelling correctly) doesn't match the detailed figures given in the cited Herald article, which place the amount from Cameron Mackintosh as less than 10% of the total.  Two: Whilst the timeline is somewhat confusing, there seems to be a disconnect between the editors' claims of serving only four months of a 15 month sentence starting in the summer of 2003, and the May 2005 newspaper report saying that the person "left jail" then. The "used-car" appellation comes from an anonymous quotation by a "local businessman" in the source, by the way, and its accuracy is somewhat suspect.  After all, the source is talking about the lack of respect that people had for the subject, which would fit with the use of "used-car dealer".  It may be that the single-purpose accounts are right, there.  But, conversely, not being able to get the name Cameron Mackintosh right does make one wonder what else the single-purpose accounts aren't getting right in those edits, unfortunately. You seem to have used one newspaper a lot.  Have you tried double-checking things like the "used car" item against reports in other, independent, newspapers, just to be sure?  Belt and braces for Fences and Windows, as it were. Uncle G (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the claim that the purchase of Kloydart was by Cameron Mackintosh was faulty - he was only one of several who helped fund the community buyout, and did not buy if for himself. Most of the other edits were of a similar nature or otherwise unverifiable. The jail timings were also different from what I can find in sources, but then newspapers can often get details like release dates wrong. You're right that most of the coverage is from The Independent - they seem to have taken a particular interest in Facia Group from the start and the articles are still easily accessible. I think that anything of importance can be verified by other sources but when I have some time I'll try to double source everything and double check all the facts and dates. I removed the "used" from "used car" - it's what the source said, but you're right that it can be seen as a negative label. I'd welcome others taking a look too. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some more details:
 * says 8500 people and 1000 shops, one of the things that the single-purpose-accounts are claiming. There seems to be a lot of variation on these figures.
 * talks about convertible preference shares, another of the things that the single-purpose-accounts are claiming.
 * Uncle G (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Gregory Clark
== japanese edition of Wikipedia. False information ==

In Japanese language Wikipedia material about my views on Japanese foreign policies have been taken from a notorious rightwing source seeking to damage my reputation in Japan. How can I have this corrected?

Gregory Clark c l a r k i n j a p a n @ g-m-a-i-l. c-o-m [email obfuscated] [unsigned]


 * I moved the above message from the Requests for comment Request board. The user didn't provide an account signature, but the history log for this change was:
 * (05:42, 15 January 2012‎ 119.245.58.209 (talk)‎ . . (49,799 bytes) (+304)‎ . . (→‎japanese edition of Wikipedia. False information:  new section) (undo) (Tag: adding email address)
 * Coastside (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All the references in the Japanese article as it stands now are from Clark's own website, save for one from the NYTs. That's all I checked, as it's late here.Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we looking at Gregory Clark (economist)/jp:グレゴリー・クラーク (経済史家)? There is a link to what looks like an error page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My educated guess is that the other Gregory Clark, ja:グレゴリー・クラーク, is the page in question. That is, after all,  and the edit war.  Uncle G (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The blog used on the old page your link leads to, and its insinuations, are no longer on the page. The complaint was resolved, by the looks of it, in May. G Clark is fluent in Japanese, to gather from his webpage, and therefore either has, or certainly can, directly intervene with admins on the Japanese wiki if what he disliked turns up again.  By the way in the third link he writes:
 * "'Maybe it is the very fact of our being democracies that allows our public opinion to be so subject to manipulation. True, being democracies also means we have access to sources such as Wikipedia, which give much more impartial accounts of Pyongyang's alleged evils, including the two recent allegedly aggressive attacks on South Korean forces in the disputed western sea frontier region (for an even better account go to japanfocus.org/-Tim-Beal/3665) But few bother with such sources. It is much easier to go along with the conventional and often contrived wisdom that says the other side is evil and our side is pure..'"
 * That's quite a compliment to wiki editors of North Korean articles, and perhaps should be placed on the main talk page of North Korea, as is customary when a wiki article gets cited in the news. (cf.Shakespeare Authorship Question)Nishidani (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Russell Welch
A BLP article on someone named Russell Welch has been created, and the same editor has put some similar reportage into theCIA drug trafficking article. To me this material seems like an attempt to describe an obscure conspiracy theory as an undisputed fact. It would be nice if a few more editors would take a look at this. Sorry if this request is not appropriately formatted – I'm not familiar with the RFC practice here. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RFC/BOARD Coastside (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I did find the reference to this, a book "White Out: The CIA, Drugs and the Press" and a NYTimes book review about Whiteout. The book review mentions a three part newspaper series on this topic in the San Jose Mercury News. Unless somehow it is shown that these references are not reliable sources, it seems appropriate to include the mention of this topic in the Welch article. Perhaps the statement that Welch "sounded the alarm" could be replaced by more neutral language, such as "investigated" or "discussed."Coaster92 (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies
More than half of this article was suddenly excised on the basis that it is OR not based on reliable sources. I query whether such is the actual case, and think that since the article clearly falls under WP:BLP that the issues are properly raised here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What BLP issues are at stake here, other than your canvassing for your POV? Hipocrite (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bandy about the term WP:CANVASSING when its meaning here isn't supported. That said, I looked at two of the lists you removed, and although it's true you removed a lot of material, I didn't see any sourcing for the removed material, and the lists, frankly, looked pretty awful to me. So, Collect, perhaps you could clarify precisely what you think the problem is.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Lexi Love
A user has been constantly reinserting content to Lexi Love through different accounts and IPs sourced to poor sources such as wikiporno.org and hotmoviesforher.com (a vendor source). He's been edit warring with several users about the assertions. It would be useful if others can keep an eye on the article and a page protect may be in order. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt she even meets the loose pornstar notability standards! Collect (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair
Craig Thomson, an Australian politician and (previously) union official, is alleged to have spent union funds on escorts. Our article states, In his speech to the House of Representatives on 21 May 2012 Thomson said that Jeff Jackson—a former HSU executive member and the former husband of HSU National Secretary Kathy Jackson—was responsible for the spending on prostitutes. The source given to support this is Thomson's speech in Parliament. Thomson does not actually make this claim anywhere in the speech (as is easily demonstrated by a quick search) and in fact there is no reliable source for the allegation that Jeff Jackson is responsible for the spending on escorts using Thomson's union credit card. It is not Wikipedia's job to smear Jeff Jackson, especially when we don't have a source.

I removed this claim from the article, citing BLP, but it was restored by User:Collect, citing NPOV. I believe that BLP trumps NPOV, at least until the matter is discussed, which it has not been, apart from Collect's advice to "Live with it." --Pete (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note:
 * 1) . Parliamentary Hansard states: "One of the other issues that I find curious is that there were two investigations: an investigation into the national office of the union and an investigation into the Victorian office of the union. In relation to the Victorian office, there were credit cards which showed expenditure on escorts and prostitutes for at least two officials. Yet it is very curious that when the Fair Work report came out on the Victorian branch there was barely a mention. There are certainly no allegations, no findings of wrongdoing. One has to question why, in an investigation by Fair Work where the second in charge of Fair Work Australia's partner, their former husband, is the subject of that investigation, there is a different approach taken when it is looking at the national office. I also think it is passing strange that the delegate and DP Lawler are both on leave at the moment. ..."
 * 2) . The newspaper article referenced states (in part): "....As secretary of the Health Services Union's number 1 branch in Victoria, Mr Jackson has been embroiled in a bitter power struggle with branch president Pauline Fegan. .... Ms Fegan last night called on him to resign over the emergence of credit card statements showing the payments to 'Keywed Pty Ltd" - which takes money for clients of the Sydney Outcalls escort agency. ...." The claims are supported. One21dot216dot (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can (mostly) support your revised wording. Thomson does, in fact make a valid point about allegations of other HSU officials spending union funds on escorts, and we can keep it under NPOV. The statement that is unsupported is that Jackson is responsible for the spending on escorts on Thomson's union credit card, as identified in specific transactions by the FWA report. We don't have a reliable source for this. --Pete (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to rename List of atheists
As there are potential BLP issues in doing this, editors might be interested in participating in Talk:List of atheists. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Nate Ruess
The article states Nate Ruess is a son of Freddie Mercury of Queen. It has been stated and is a well-known fact that Freddie Mercury didn't have any children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.145.250 (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Jack Welch
Having previously received help at this noticeboard, I'd like to ask again for input on BLP issues with the Jack Welch article. While recent edits have improved the article, I've noticed that there are some criticisms of Welch that are unsourced or not supported by the sources, either provided or anywhere. I've explained this issue in full on the Talk page, citing the specific criticisms I believe should be removed. This explanation also includes a suggestion to remove a statement that seems to be editorialization. My reason for being reluctant to make these edits myself is that my interest in the article is related to my employer, Strayer University, which owns the Jack Welch Management Institute. If anyone here is able to review and implement the edits I've suggested, I would be grateful. Thanks,Hamilton83 (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I read through the cited references for your first two points and I agree that the statements are not found in the references. I do not have time right now to work on the third. Let's see if there is input from other editors. But it does appear the statements in question should be revised or deleted. I also left this comment on the article talk page.Coaster92 (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris Hatcher
There is only one source for the entire page, which is a conference info book. This article needs verifiable sources for the extensive information posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewzealanderA (talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Mikki Padilla
The Mikki Padilla BLP is basically devoid of reliable sources, but my main concern on first reading the article is the identification of a person of Latino heritage as "Spanish-American". Is that standard on Wikipedia? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed not notable/not related to their notability ethnic claim from the lede as per WP:MOSBIO - You  really  can  22:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Richard Hatch (Survivor contestant)

 * - Richard Hatch (Survivor contestant)

This entire section is unsourced. It should probably be removed if not sourced. I did remove one claim of being married that was unsourced. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Lori Wilde
I am the author Lori Wilde. My name is listed incorrectly on my wiki page. I am Laurie (NOT LAURA) Blalock (NOT Blabock) Vanzura (NOT Moeller). Could someone please help me correct this. Every time I try it says I don't have the proper citation. Do you need my birth certificate and marriage license? How do I get this wrong information revised so that it will STAY revised?

LAURIE BLALOCK VANZURA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.153.36 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just edited to 'Laurie Blalock' only. Do you have a bio site from a publisher or other reliable source?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I found a citation for the full name and have added it to the article. --Slp1 (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like a vanity article. Most edits are by the author or anonymous IP from her home town. Best selling author is just a sales an marketing term. Is she notable in the WP sense? No wonder it was so hard to find any reference to her true identity.--Aspro (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think she meets BLP:Notable, her books have been nominated for awards 4-6 times. Someone else can deal with any vanity issues. I just thought I would get the name correct. I wonder how Moeller ended up in there. I may go back in the history and check.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I just found a third name added to another article by the same editor. Kelley Armstrong Fricke. The editor even made a re-direct using it. Her website and others don't mention Fricke though. Should we just remove the third name as no RS?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: These awards all appear to be industry publicity stunts. As such they don't mean nothing. Harlequin is part of Mills & Boon's. The processes is that the publisher requires you to produces  formulaic  pulp fiction to their requirement. . They are a large company that can afford to promote their contracted employees. I was willing to give her the benefit of the double by bring it here and not AfD but it now looks like this whole thing is author driven rather than a general public recognition or rightful notability of some sort of  literature merit. In sort: if this author was notable we would have had an article already without her having to create it herself. What_Wikipedia_is_not Anyone one for AfD?--Aspro (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sir David Murray (Scottish Businessman)


Sir David Murray (Scottish Businessman)... The introduction to Sir David Murray is at least criminal. (Repetition of the vandalism removed. Uncle G (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)) The author of this introduction is contemptious, liable and criminal.

William Gillon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit tool that you used to write this noticeboard section can also be used to revert vandalism to a biography. You also have, as someone with an account, an undo tool.  Next time that you see such vandalism, revert it!  You have all of the tools for dealing with such things.  Only if the vandal is persistent, and needs xyr editing privileges revoked, is someone who has more tools than you yourself possess required.  And don't repeat material that you think to be libellous when pointing it out. Uncle G (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of BLPPROD tag from Amine Dinar page
I have twice now added a BLPPROD tag to a new page, Amine Dinar. User:Pepe13000, the author of the page, has removed it each time (here and here.) I'm not sure whether adding this a 3rd time is covered by the 3rr exemption for BLPs, so I figured I should report it here rather than edit warring. Joel Why? talk  17:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restored it. It probably won't last...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Death of Azaria Chamberlain

 * The article is current news, as a coroner's court has recently found that baby Azaria, whose mother was gaoled for her murder was, in fact, taken by a dingo.
 * The article had a hatnote giving a misquotation of what the infant's mother, Lindy Chamberlain, said when she found the baby missing.
 * The quotation and various misquotations were in frequent use as ridicule and to victimise the mother of the deceased infant.
 * The misquotation became the name of a fictitious band in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". The naming of this band constituted a further victimisation of the deceased infant's mother.
 * My assessment is that having this misquotation and a redirect to the band as a hatnote to the article, prolongs the victimization, and would cause offence to Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton, the baby's father Michael Chamberlain and brother Aiden Chamberlain.

I removed the hatnote. It was returned to the article. I have just removed it again, and considere that the matter of "Victimization' needs to be discussed before it is returned as a hatnote.

I do not suggest that the band should not be mentioned under the section on "media", but that to provide balance and not cause offence, it ought not be the first thing one confronts on coming to the article. Amandajm (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Amandajm. Dolphin  ( t ) 05:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please comment on this at Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 14. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  12:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is a misquote rather than an exact quote is irrelevant to the pejorative uses to which the quote was later put (and therefore, irrelevant to this discussion). The hatnote exists as part of the routine disambiguation of topics with related names (or as in this case, related inbound redirects).  The hatnote is not part of the article.  While it does appear at the top of the page, it is outside the normal flow of the article and is in a location and font that readers tend to ignore unless they are following a redirect and want to know why they landed where they did.  I personally see nothing any more offensive or objectionable about that placement than the inclusion of the phrase in the "media" section lower down.  I do not see a BLP issue here.  If anything, the balanced presentation in the article and its discussion of the exoneration of the mother (and explicit repudiation of the pejoratives) would appear to be exactly the sort of thing that the BLP policy was meant to achieve.  Rossami (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Response 
 * "While it does appear at the top of the page, it is outside the normal flow of the article and is in a location and font that readers tend to ignore unless they are following a redirect and want to know why they landed where they did."
 * I regard the above statement as whitewashing.
 * The fact that the misquoted words of the distraught mother are in Italics and are the first thing that one sees after the heading, draws attention to them, rather than the other way around.
 * Secondly, Rossami has drawn on a technical argument: "the hatnote is not part of the article", in order to justify leaving at the top of the page (and inside the heading) something that represents the sort of victimization that these people suffered.
 * It does matter that the living subject's words were used (accurately quoted or not) to taunt her.
 * The fictitious band is so non-notable that it scarcely justifies this.
 * Have some human decency!
 * Amandajm (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Hatnote is in "article space". But whether or not it "counts" as being "in" or "out" of the article proper is pretty irrelevent. BLP applies to ALL Wikipedia spaces: articles (both the article proper and any doodads around the article content), talk pages, user pages, etc. (A formerly very commonly used interal shortcut for WP:BOOMERANG was deleted and the entire essay purged and recreated without that reference based on BLP.) -- The Red Pen of Doom  14:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to WP:Plaxico in your parenthetical? If so, that case is irrelevant.  The WP:Plaxico redirect and essay were deleted (by a thin consensus) because they were an instance of Wikipedia creating and actively extending the pejorative use.  We have no business doing that.  We are allowed, however, to report on and in limited cases even to use the pejoratives made common by others.  That's why, for example, there is no controversy about Dubya redirecting to George W. Bush and have an entire page of Bushisms such as misunderestimate.  Rossami (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The case is entirely relevant to showing that Wikipedia does not limit application of BLP to "main article content". and if you think the thin consensus has changed, you may try and reinstate the shortcut. -- The Red Pen of Doom  11:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You missed the point. The difference is not where the BLP violation occurs but whether we are committing it or merely reporting it.  WP:Plaxico was deleted because we were committing the violation ourselves.  Dubya is not deleted because we are merely reporting a common pejorative used by others which became notable in its own right.  Not all pejoratives are BLP violations.  Attempts to interpret WP:BLP in that light will result in white-washed articles.  We must be respectful of the subjects of biographies but we must also remain true to our core mission as an encyclopedia.  Rossami (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes we can report on things, but a hatnote is not reporting. And there is a huge difference between a nickname that was originally and widely used by the supporters of someone who ran for an won a highly prominent public role and someone who was falsely accused of murder. -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Jewish issue (again)
User:Bbrezic added the following sentence at the end of the Career section: "Schwartz is Jewish." . The sentence came right after a sentence that Schwartz was a member of an improv group. Bbrezic also added various Jewish categories to the article. I reverted, partly because it was jarring - came out of nowhere. It was sort of like, "I went to the beach today, and the waves were great. I'm Jewish." So, resourceful Bbrezic came back, added a personal section to the article with some background about Schwartz, where he was born, what his mother did, and where he went to college. And, you guessed it, at the end of that stuff: "He is Jewish." Categories back in.

Now I definitely think that's an improvement, but I still fail to see any relevance to the article. How is being Jewish important to him? How does it affect his career? Even something about his childhood and being Jewish, nothing. BTW, Bbrezic appears to have an interest in Jewish subjects, lists of Jewish actors, adding Jewish to articles + cats, etc. This can be gleaned from his contributions, of course.

I've left in the edit because I sort of promised to stay away from contentious discussions of these issues, but I thought BLPN could use some excitement, so I bring it here (rather than first raise it on the Talk page).

I figure either someone will comment or no one will comment. Seems like a fairly safe bet.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Bbb23, I agree that when folks "jam" people's Jewish ethnicity into an article it isn't the best and really isn't relevant, BUT, well written bios usually cover upbringing and religion and ethnicity, ect, even if it doesn't contribute to why they are notable or really all that relevant. Editors have had a "fascination" with Jewishness for pride reasons and also for anti-sematic reasons and you name it for years on this project. It seems, thankfully, that if enough non involved, level headed folks work on it, it does get "handled" in a neutral and non offensive and fair way, most of the time. --Mollskman (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, Mollskman, but I'm not demanding hardcore relevance, just a little context. For example, in the infamous Zuckerberg discussion, at least there was some context for talking about his Jewish upbringing, his later description of himself as an atheist, even if being Jewish (or atheist, for that matter) wasn't relevant to his notability as Facebook guy. With Schwartz, no relevance is established, not even any context, just, "He is Jewish." That's kind of lame, don't you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. Infantile... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23, yes, I absolutely agree that I hate when I see ethnicity presented that way and it is lame. Just as it would be if it said, he is catholic or Italian or whatever, period without anything else for "context". Usually editors will talk about the subjects parents ethnicity or childhood upbringing or yadda yadda and it "flows" better, and it doesn't seem like its being "forced" into the article for possible "other" reasons, be they good or bad. --Mollskman (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @AndyTheGrump, I know this gets covered alot, probably too much, but I don't think Bbb23 and/or myself are being infantile or disrespectful or maybe I am reading you wrong? --Mollskman (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The obsession that some Wikipedia contributors have with tagging people as Jewish is infantile, plain and simple - and this particular example is just ridiculous. The article that describes Schwartz as Jewish, also says (repeatedly) that he is 'cute'. Per WP:NPOV etc, if we are going to cite the article for his ethnicity, shouldn't we cite it for his 'cuteness' too? At least the latter may have a bearing on his career... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for the clarification, I thought you were refering to Bbb23 or myself or both.. --Mollskman (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a number of editors who appear to be obsessed with ethnicity. I've seen some BLP articles which list up to twelve ethnicities which "make up" the subject. What does it contribute to the article to state that a subject's mother (for example) has a French, Dutch, Russian, Swedish and Lebanese background and the father has a Jamaican, English, German, Native American, Jewish and Spanish background? In most cases this, and the attached citations, just serve to clutter up the article. If anyone tries to clean it up, they are often met with a ferocious response. May be a case of political correctness run amok (which is certainly not appropriate for an encyclopedia). Taroaldo (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with 'political correctness' as it was (allegedly) originally conceived by the left/liberal/progressives, nor with the 'political correctness gone mad' sloganising of the right - instead this is a much older obsession. 'The good guys are all one of us, and the bad guys are all one of them'. Kindergarten stuff. Like I said, infantile. Apart from anything else, it reduces 'Jewishness' to a mere label. A history going back (possibly) to the time of the Pharaohs? They don't care, as long as they can tag everyone they can. For these individuals, the answer to the question 'Who is a Jew' is 'whoever we can find described as one', and any possibility that an individual's identity may possibly have little to do with their ancestry has to be subsumed in a frenzy of simplistic categorisation. At the risk of stating the obvious, and no doubt arousing the ire of far too many who are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions, I'll point out that this particular exercise has been engaged in before, with less than optimal results for those to whom the labels were attached... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting how Jewish question still brings up a lot of commentary, wonder why. If you have problem with sentence following, then edit or delete it. It is that simple. But I think the categories should remain, since Schwartz Jewish origin have been made public by himself. So what is this really about, him being Jewish or someone having problems with inducing that on his Wikipedia page?--89.164.168.157 (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Interesting how Jewish question still brings up a lot of commentary, wonder why." That is an unfair characterization in this forum. Please remember to assume good faith. Taroaldo (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How is that unfair, could you explain?--Mollskman (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * . I don't think it is an issue that will go away without a policy change. I have seen endless discussions on it. Bob Dylan is one of the longest I have witnessed. It may be an underlying battle between the 'taggers' arguing relevence, freedom of speech, etc. and the 'tag removers' arguing bigotry, racism, homophobia, etc. It may have to go to one of those huge RfC like the naming of the abortion articles did. In the meantime the discussions will probably go on. Has it been brought up in other forums, Jimbo's talk page comes to mind.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're going to talk about Schwartz: I agree it doesn't seem to make sense to identify him as Jewish in the way described. If we're going to talk about the more general issue (not many recent posts here discuss Schwartz): I usually don't think it's important to identify people as Jewish, but I continually fail to see why doing so upsets certain people so greatly.  Some editors are driven into a blind rage about it (I don't include Bbb23 in that category) -- and it's really mainly when someone's Jewishness is in question.  I find this strange.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Especially given the fact that being jewish can mean a number of different things it makes no sense to describe a person as Jewish without describing in which of the senses he or she identifies as such and what that identity means to him or her.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not usual to focus on subjects genetics unless its notable - why this repeatedly is added only in regards to Jews is the issue we need to address - The user adding this has an apparent focus on such additions - user:Bbrezic 's recent contribution history - You  really  can  22:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with YRC about the larger issue (not as sure about the reference to genetics) or the fact that this editor seems to have an agenda, I'd still like to bring this back to just the Schwartz article for a moment. Do we have a consensus that the sentence and the cats should be removed?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * maunus has removed the material and cats.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The given source clearly didn't satisfy WP:BLPCAT - Schwartz never mentined the word Jewish in the interview and nothing in the interview suggested that he considered Jewishness to be of importance to him.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read it when it was first put in. The closest Schwartz came to saying he was Jewish was when he didn't deny the characterization in his response to a question - heh.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BLPCAT does not apply, as we clearly are not talking about Jewish in the religious sense and BLPCAT does not apply to ethnicity. I'm content with Maunus's edit -- I'd simply like to make sure we have a well-considered discussion of the issue.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

- that is the problem - "BLPCAT does not apply, as we clearly are not talking about Jewish in the religious sense and BLPCAT does not apply to" - its the vagueness and the lack of clarity for the reader - the categorization can be interpreted as asserting religious belief so WP:BLPCAT does imo apply. - I have seen claims recently that, on wiki Jewishness has been historically been consensus considered as an ethnicity but there are no cats that allude to that - the community needs to revisit this issue as it is constantly disputed and the subject of multiple disputes. IMO because Jewishness is a complicated issue, we need additional cats to clearly portray subjects correctly and not vaguely as per currently - which creates all the disputes/discussions. You really  can  23:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt it will happen, but... In my opinion as a Canadian where we don't have such a big issue with racism, bigotry, homophobia, etc. All the categories should just be deleted. They are just a way to tag and label minority or persecuted groups. Do readers actually need to see all the pages in Category:American xxxx poets type thing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Much as I agree with you, Canoe, it'll never happen. Let me know when you nominate all the categories for deletion, and I'll bring refreshments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Canada, but many in America would find that position offensive. If you are truly beyond racism and bigotry then it should be a positive thing to acknowledge and celebrate cultural, religious, ethnic, gender, and even racial differences, and not some shameful thing to sweep under the carpet in order to pretend that everybody is the same (and which same would that be - one that denies the minority?).  In any event, the reliable sources are not sweeping identity categories under the carpet.  There are books, scholarly journals, and university departments dedicated to these subjects, for goodness sake.  Whether you attribute the interest in Jewishness to bigotry, chauvinism, or humanistic pursuit of knowledge doesn't really matter.  That's what the body of written knowledge about the world says, that's what we carefully reflect. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it remarkable that you can speak for the "many in America". These categories are nothing but trouble at Wikipedia, and they are largely unnecessary except for those who revel in labels. And, in this instance, we don't "carefully reflect" anything. We messily reflect and fight about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Aren't we finding here Ben Schwartz confirming that he is Jewish? This edit is removing mention of what I think is reasonably well-sourced information. Re-wording is always an option but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the removal of information in this case. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Canoe1967—you ask "Do readers actually need to see all the pages in Category:American xxxx poets type thing?" Yes, I think, as an encyclopedia our default position should be in favor of the inclusion of information. In my opinion, an argument should have to be made on a case-by-case basis for not including information. Bus stop (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What a surprise, Bus Stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, the Jew-tagger in chief turns up and tells us yet again that he thinks that Wikipedia policy should be ignored if it gets in the way of his obsession. What a surprise. Of course, as Maunus has already pointed out, a statement that 'person X is Jewish' is actually devoid of 'information' anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump and Bbb23—there are several sources showing us that Ben Schwartz is Jewish: Is there some reason this should not be mentioned in the body of the article? Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. You know full well that Wikipedia policy is that it is for those who wish to include material to justify it -  this applies just as much to your infantile obsessive-compulsive Jew-tagging as it does to anything else. Go away. Get a life. Or a website of your own... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump—this thread was initiated here. It was not initiated by me. Bus stop (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (ignoring intervening personal attacks that I tried to delete, and addressing Bus Stop) Those seem like weak sources, if not simply not reliable and therefore unusable in a BLP context. Nevertheless, if the statement by vulture.com is supportable and of due weight then yes, it would establish that it is legitimacy to say (in proper context) that Schwartz is Jewish: "Ben Schwartz is quickly making a career out of being the cutest Jewish boy from the North Bronx".  That asserts that being Jewish, and also being cute, form the basis of his notability, which goes beyond even the most stringent criteria that have been proposed.  If better sourcing can be found that should end the question here, and no need to rehash the ongoing debate that applies to people whose Jewish ethnicity / ancestry is less relevant or well sourced.  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon—I don't consider "Ben Schwartz is quickly making a career out of being the cutest Jewish boy from the North Bronx" a serious statement befitting an encyclopedia, and it may be in violation of the policy which says that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Bus stop (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? His 'cuteness' has more relevance to his career (the only reason he merits an article), than his 'Jewishness'. Both are opinions. One is significant. And it isn't his (vague) ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Cute" is a value judgement to which sources do not ascribe great weight. The attribute of identity of being Jewish is generally considered significant and several sources evidence that significance by commenting on it. We have four sources listed above mentioning Ben Schwartz's Jewishness, one of which is a video including Ben Schwartz commenting affirmatively about his Jewishness. I think that our policies favor the inclusion of reliably sourced information, once notability for the subject of the article has been established. We find that "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list" and that "Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." I think that the reader is served by the inclusion of information. The reader can disregard that which they feel is irrelevant. But the reader can't make any assessment of information that is absent. Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) "Jewishness" is not quite such an "important attribute" as you appear to think, which must be ascribed to anyone with a drop of Jewish blood. It might be of value in some circles, but the Wikipedia community has decided that labeling people is not so all-fired important as some appear to wish. As for the position that it is important for readers to know the ethnic, national, religious, and genetic "purity" of people - I fear I demur. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Collect—can you please explain to me why Ben Schwartz speaks affirmatively of the role Jewishness plays in his life in this video? And by the way, no source is referring to "drop(s) of Jewish blood" or anything remotely like that. All sources are simply referring to Ben Schwartz as being Jewish, yet inexplicably you are arguing for omitting that piece of information from the individual's biography. Also, can you please provide a link to where "the Wikipedia community has decided" to omit information of this sort from the body of an article which ostensibly constitutes a biography of an individual? Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have run into your arguments in the past, and the validity thereof remains as unsound as in all the other cases where you wished to have people labeled as "Jewish." Cheers - but I decline to play the "fallacy game" here as well. Collect (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I endorse Collect's position here. At some point we need as a community to emphatically reject the idea that ethnicity needs to be recorded at every turn. We already have WP:BLP and BLPCAT and maybe we need to underline how they work to avoid this ethno-tagging and the endless and tendentious arguments of its proponents. --John (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not going to do away with Jewishness as a biographically significant issue, not as long as people continue to identify themselves and each other as Jewish, and the sources continue to source it, which in my guess is beyond our lifetimes and that of Wikipedia. Conversely, we have rejected a blanket rule of identifying as Jewish everyone for whom we can source it, at a very minimum we have the usual concerns of relevance, due weight, strength of sources, and whatever else goes into deciding which facts to put in an article.  Those who bang the drum in favor of extremes outside this range of reasonable outcomes, to the point of antagonizing those who disagree with accusations and insulting taunts are not making an actionable argument, and are creating a hostile environment for anyone perhaps a little less upset about the issue or with a more nuanced opinion.  Calling people ethno-taggers is actually pretty insulting, and potentially offensive - it offends me for one.  There is a specific question here.  First, Ben Schwartz is clearly Jewish.  Being Jewish is not a hurtful or contentious thing, so there is no urgent BLP issue to fight over.  Having said that, in this article, is there strong enough sourcing that his being Jewish is a relevant biographical detail, using whatever test or approach you think is appropriate?  Please keep the discussion focused on that content question.  If the answer is no, then it stays out.  If the answer is yes, then subject to editorial discretion and consensus it can be added. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That all sounds reasonable and intelligent apart from one thing. Saying "Being Jewish is not a ... contentious thing" seems to be contradicted by the existence of this discussion. There is no need to be offended by the term "ethno-tagger" unless you are one. I use it to describe editors who wish to, as you put it "[identify] as Jewish everyone for whom we can source it" which, as you say, is not our policy here. If you can think of a nicer way to describe those editors than the term you don't like, please propose it and I will consider using it. --John (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * John—I think calling a fellow editor an "ethno-tagger" is in violation of the Talk page guideline "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Bus stop (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a talk page. It's a notice board. One of the things we talk about here is editors' behaviour. We've agreed that Wikipedia does not blanket-identify everyone by ethnicity, even if sources can be found. I call people who edit in violation of that pre-existing consensus "ethno-taggers". If there's a better term for problematic editors of this type, let's hear it. --John (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris Rogers
Could someone please take a look at the Chris Rogers article. After his investigation for Panorama on BBC One there has been all sorts of comments added. Several of the recent reverts now mention lawyers and libel, so it is important this is properly dealt with immediately. Uvghifds (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - this user - could use a link to WP:NLT an there is clearly a WP:COI element that is adding promo/masses of not independently notable promotional content -  You  really  can  22:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are all sorts of problems with that article:
 * Improper wikification all over the place.
 *  tags that have no clear relationship to article text all over the place.
 * Conflict of interest autobiographical editing by, , and (The subject .) that introduces promotional and biased language such as "shocking", "appalling", "provocative films", and "moving film".
 * YouTube cited as a source.
 * And this in addition to the aforementioned edits from IP addresses assigned to the BBC talking of . Uncle G (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely there should have been some notices on users talk pages by now warning them and pointing to the talk page of the article before going full tilt with NLT and COI? I came here from User talk:Jimbo Wales and it seems a bit much to advise there but not have offered any help or advice to the users editing the page. Dmcq (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't looked properly. No-one has done anything with NLT and COI, let alone "gone full tilt" with them.  What has been done, in contrast, is the fairly wise move of letting Jimbo know before taking any action with respect to a major international news organization, as well as focussing upon what's wrong with and what needs fixing in a biographical article. Uncle G (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on the fact that the users involved have not been given any sort of help or advice at all that I can see or pointed at this discussion and there is no discussion on the talk page of the article. Surely the people involved should be told about concerns? I notice a big red notice at the top of this page " If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use subst:BLPN-notice to do so. " Dmcq (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief! The people involved are the people expressing the concerns.  They know full well that there are concerns.  We &mdash; well except you, that is &mdash; are doing what we're supposed to do: looking to see whether there is indeed a problem with the biography, and looking to fix it if so.  Don't overlook legal threats. Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence from their contributions or talk pages or the talk page of the article that they know anything about COI or legal threats or this discussion or that they have been informed about anything like that or they have been offered any advice bout it. There is a clear directive at the top of this page to inform them if you mention them. Why have you not done so? Do we need something at WP:AN/I about this? Or should I just have raised something at AN/I without informing you about my concerns? Dmcq (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that bit in the header of this page was only put in a week ago by Equazcion and there is nothing about it on the talk page. Perhaps people do not believe it should be followed and that people mentioned here should not be informed? I certainly got that sort of response on the fringe noticeboard where they definitely did not want to inform people they were talking about, I thought it was extremely bad and leads to ingroups. Anyway I have gone round and put a notice about this discussion on the talk pages of the people mentioned. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A very PUFFy BLP - needed a little removed. Collect (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been brought to the notice of Jimbo at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 108. Dmcq (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This was initially very confusing. It turned out that every cited source preceded the text that it purportedly supports, rather than followed it.  That cause me a false start.  I've fixed this.  Here are some more problems that I've spotted:
 * Several sources are things such as Google Image searches.
 * This is either a copyright violation or an advertisement.
 * is word-for-word identical, albeit that some of the sentences have been moved around, with what is currently source #18 in the article. Unfortunately, that source is entitled Hire popular speaker Chris Rogers for corporate events, and is an advertisement.  And this wasn't the first time that it was copied and pasted wholesale into the article, either. . Uncle G (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make a start wikifying the article. Most of the content, with the exception of the recent parts relating to the Euro 2012 investigation, appears to have been written by an account with a clear coi.  Chris Rogers is not a very high profile journalist, which makes me think that this has been done by the individual in question as promotional material. Uvghifds (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See above, which edit conflicted with you. Uncle G (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a good outcome, especially considering the copy paste issues - the subject might be wiki notable - (although journalists imo really need a quality award to be wiki notable) and if a new article is created we can watch it develop and stop a repeat of the previous issues -  You  really  can  17:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is right because of the name of the originator of the edit. I am just a bit worried though. The site that it was supposed to be copied from offers the services of a large number of speakers and I'm just a bit worried lest they have summarized stuff from Wikipedia rather than vice versa. That's a problem I've had before. I've only looked at one other entry so far and I don't think it was close enough to be that but I'll check a few more. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I've had another look at a few more on that site and it is clear they do sometimes look at Wikipedia but they write stuff themselves. However compare Paul Rose (TV presenter) and, perhaps our copy is a copyvio?. Also the photo in looks like it was taken from the one in Jonathan Agnew which has the claim of own photo by an editor on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * was taken verbatim in 2009 from that is copyrighted 2008.  (Note that Rose's WWW page has changed since.  The Wikipedia article, ironically, has not.) Uncle G (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Named person (sex offender)
Assuming this new article is correct, a 19 year old male had sex with a 15 year old female, and so became a "sex offender". The couple are now married with children. What should happen? Rename to an article on the incident? Redirect to some article on topic of legal weirdness? Keep and celebrate the approach of 4 million articles? Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One definition of "offender" is "a person who transgresses moral or civil law." Clearly he has admitted to transgressing civil law, so the title could be justified on those grounds. But the present tense of "transgresses" might be the wrong tense if, as appears to be the case, he has ceased to be a lawbreaker. And obviously there is dispute as to whether he violated any moral law. So I would welcome an alternative title if anyone can think of something suitable. Leucosticte (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How about Frank Rodriguez, or is that to novel? --Mollskman (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Already taken by a sports figure. Dru of Id (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Sorry. Then I would go for the "incident" thingy :) maybe. --Mollskman (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Frank doesn't dispute that he is a sex offender. He just disputes whether he should be listed as one. If the article were not renamed to the incident, since this is actually about more than one incident (although you could call everything after the crime the aftermath), how are articles on people notable for crimes normally disambiguated? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's tough because this type of terminology has slipped into the popular lexicon pretty thoroughly, even if the denotation is technically inaccurate. I think that the government may promote terminology such as "offender" for propaganda reasons. It justifies continued restrictions on a person's liberty to imply that because he has offended, he is therefore an "offender," which implies that he is a person who is in the habit of offending. In accordance with Wikipedia's philosophy that our encyclopedia is a follower of trends adopted by others, we can cater to that terminology because it is in popular usage.


 * Or we can get creative and come up with something more accurate and nonbiased. Being nonbiased would tend to be more in accordance with our other policy, WP:NPOV. But so far, I haven't been able to come up with a title based on the incident that wouldn't sound kinda silly. 1996 copulation with Nikki Prescott? A theoretical possibility, but readers might find it a bit weird. Leucosticte (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we have a middle name in any of the reliable sources? Disambiguating by middle initial or full middle name would be the most neutral way to handle this. -- Jayron  32  02:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In one sense, I agree, because disambiguation is one of the purposes of middle names even existing. But if a person isn't normally called Frank Q. Rodriguez, aren't we supposed to refrain from putting the middle initial? E.g., we don't have an article Barack H. Obama, even though that helps distinguish him from the other Barack Obamas out there. Leucosticte (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He seems to be Frank Rodriguez Jr. according to this. Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The same problem arises with Jr. We don't have an article titled Barack Obama II even though that helps disambiguate. Leucosticte (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The actual problem is that anyone can edit Wikipedia and make a "biography" of a person that is guaranteed to be #1 in search hits, and which will be widely mirrored—a perpetual assertion of evilness, and which will be used to harass the individual and his children. The fact that a particular individual fell foul of a legal quandary is not of encyclopedic interest—the thing that is encyclopedic is the fact that certain laws lead to controversial results. See WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E. Johnuniq (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think BLP1E ceased to apply when his media coverage outlasted the incident and its immediate aftermath. Once he started being cited in calls for reform of the sex offender registry, in fact, despite the offense being years old at that point. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Half of the referenced article titles are misleading at best. While I don't see justification for keeping this as a biography, it could reasonably be included in a future article about case law or legislative revision in Texas, and the article may actually do more good than harm, but that's speculation. The law has prevented a family from benefitting from full employment for a situation that the legislature didn't imagine. We'll see what happens with the AfD. Dru of Id (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sent to WP:Articles for deletion/Controversial cases involving sex offenses. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I like to move it to Frank and Nikki Rodriguez, but even better is to merge it into Controversial cases involving sex offenses, as I have done. Leucosticte (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Prince William
In Doing a search using Bing, I noticed the following on Prince William. There were two referneces to Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and one contained the wording: Prince William, Duke of Cambridge KG KT (William Arthur Philip Louis; [fn 1] born 21 June 1982), is the elder retard of Charles, Prince of Wales, and … — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.100.94 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * [fn 1] means footnote 1, which says that some people don't have surnames. Some pop stars don't even have names, just symbols.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording "elder retard" doesn't make a whole lot of sense; probably a typo. Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It was not in the source either. We would probably need another RS to add it back.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, Wikipedians and the "stench of royalty"! What they're joking and beating around the bush telling you, 98.103.100.94, is that this was Bing's spider picking up vandalism that you're . Uncle G (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Graham Linehan
This comment pertains to the page for writer Graham Linehan. This comment is not so much about the biographical facts as it is about the actual writing within the article. As an objective reader, and not as a Linehan expert, I am confused by the first sentence of the Career section:

"Linehan didn't hook up with Mathews, whom he had worked alongside at Irish Rock Music magazine Hot Press." (The sentence above is copied from Edit-tab version of the article.)

(The sentence below is copied from Read-tab version of the article,           the words 'Hot Press' linking to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Press.) "Linehan didn't hook up with Mathews, whom he had worked alongside at Irish Rock Music magazine Hot Press."

Does the writer mean, "Linehan hooked up with Mathews, whom he had worked alongside at Irish Rock Music magazine Hot Press."?

I hope the original author of the article or someone can make sense of this sentence while maintaining its accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevictor99 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The "sentence" is unintelligible, but it doesn't matter as I've removed it as unsourced (and unencyclopedic). I removed some other material from the section as well. I didn't look at the other sections of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And this is how causes information (in this case the information that two people met while working in a particular place &mdash; information verifiable from, apparently, Father Ted: The Complete Scripts (ISBN 9780752218502) amongst other places) to disappear from articles. Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A bit of work, but I found a book sourcing their meeting at Hot Press and stuck it in the article (god, cite book is long - couldn't see page numbers).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Amazon, where I found the above, didn't tell me page numbers, either. &#9786;  You can often pick page numbers out of a Google Books URL.  See where it has  ?  Google doesn't document this, but that's telling you that &mdash; according to Google's numbering at any rate &mdash; that's page 289 of the book. Uncle G (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added the page number to the cite, although I'm not sure how helpful it is in the case of an eBook. I haven't used Kindle or similar devices, so I don't know if the page number is useful to know when checking the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter Garrett
When I linked your page about Mr. Peter Garrett, the preview had a photo of some woman with Mr. Garrett nowhere in sight. No idea who she is. No idea how to fix this problem. I don't care how dumbed down you make it for me, I cannot do it. It was all I could do to find this page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.86.153.155 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess we are talking about the above page. It seems ok now, and I cannot see a template or image that has recently changed. If there is a problem, please post the URL of the page that shows the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess we are talking about the above page. It seems ok now, and I cannot see a template or image that has recently changed. If there is a problem, please post the URL of the page that shows the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of my actions at Bus monitor bullying video - Moved from ANI
I've recently revdel'd some content on this article as it revealed the names of the minor's involved and ask that someone double checks my actions seeing as how it;s been questioned on the talk page. As I stated at my RfA I'm not very strong on BLP and only come across this as the article due to it being mentioned at Greece Athena High School, an article I had watchlisted for copyright reasons.

I also suspect that this article may generally need more eyes. Dpmuk (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Moved from ANI to here by Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  00:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone over fairly well, looks clean now. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  01:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC
 * Much improved after your edits - awful newsy article with no long tern encyclopaedic notability imo - its been nominated for deletion - the discussion reflects all that is wrong with this project imo - You  really  can  07:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)



Vassula Ryden
Was the information removed here correctly removed? Edit summary says "any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source". Loads of arguments about this article. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting article - There appears to be some conflicted/involved editors- personally I don-t see a need to add some critics have called her a con artist using that citation - it seems unduly attacking portrayal and just unnecessary - there is still a fair bit of critical content remaining so its not too much of an issue imo - You  really  can  07:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Citing emails from an RS which lacks any indication that the authors of those emails gave permission for their publication
At The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man, an article proposed for deletion here because it is based on a single source, the article in question cites several times emails from Anthony Pagden, Ghada Karmi and Avi Shlaim. There is no indication as far as I can see that the author of the article has, in the notes or elsewhere, registered that he has had permission to do this. Since the article is a polemic that takes these three scholars harshly to task by citing their private correspondence, what is the position of WP:BLP regarding this?Nishidani (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article refers to the three people you mention, but I don't see any reference to e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two references in the article that, in the original are cited as the content of private emails:
 * (1)'When asked by Afsai for the source of the atory and text of the cable, Shlaim responded that he found it in...'
 * The source tells us that Shlaim's response was in a private email.


 * (2)'When queried by Afsai, Karmi responded that "The story's origins has caused me problems. I got the citation from Avi Shlaim at Oxford, who gave me a reference for it, which turned out not to be correct. I then searched hard for the source and have come up with a blank. I fear it might be apocryphal, much as I had not wanted that.'
 * This is a verbatim quote from Karmi's private email as cited by our article. We have a wiki article citing private correspondence, for which we have no evidence that permission for publication was ever given, in short. Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So, anyone? Can private emails used in a published source that lacks explicit evidence of permission for their publication, be reproduced in our articles? I mean this should be a straightforward legal issue, for which a wiki law expert should have the answer. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still having trouble following you, but if you're saying that Afsai's book makes it clear that he's quoting e-mail, I don't have access to the book - so I'll just accept your word for it. The issue of whether Afsai has "permission" from the e-mail authors is rarely of concern to Wikipedia. The issue is generally only whether the source is deemed reliable and the material is otherwise policy-compliant. The legal issues surrounding what Afsai's written in his book are his problem and perhaps his publisher's. There might be some exceptions to my statement about Wikipedia's role in this, but I don't see one present in these circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Our article quotes a private email from Ghada Karmi verbatim. I'm not concerned with Afsai's article. I'm asking whether a private email cited in a source (the source fails to acknowledge legal permission to publish it) can be reproduced on wikipedia without running any legal risk.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * yes it can be cited if the published source is deemed to meet our reliable sources and it is otherwise not being used in a manner to support claims not directly made by the published source and is content  directly relevant to the article.  Your issue is probably better addressed at WP:RSN--  The Red Pen of Doom  12:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Married names
I came across an editor that is adding a third name to women after they are married. There is no source for a legal name change and the source seems to be enclopedia.com owned by High Beam. Kelley Armstrong still has the third name and Lori Wilde was changed to the correct third name after Lori requested it earlier on this board. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * to Kelley Armstrong
 * to Lori Wilde
 * You need to read that WWW page more carefully. The source is actually Gale's Contemporary Authors New Revision Series, as it does clearly say near to the top of the page, and  does not seem correct.  The problem is not that the source is unreliable, but is rather that  added information that is not in that source and is indeed contradicted by it.  The profile in Contemporary Authors gives "Kelley L. Armstrong" as the name. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't remember which article that E-romance used the High Beam source for, and I think that edit was reverted. Should someone politely ask them to remove all the last names that have been added if there is no RS for a legal name change? This would save others from trying to find them all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The diff is now above, and as I said above I'm of the view that it was reverted too far, since the source does support some of the other content. Check out the removed material against the source and see what you think. I've asked E-romance to come here and explain.  I acknowledge the possibility, after all, that there is an explanation for this, even though the earlier Lori Wilde discussion does strongly point to the conclusion that this stuff is just being made up.  Perhaps there's another source that E-romance hadn't cited, which xe can cite as an explanation. I tried to follow up on the source cited for the second edit, by the way.  I got a WWW page saying that there wasn't such a page on that site. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that the IP that reverted it has left a note on the E-romance talk page stating that the subject did not publish certain information for privacy reasons. I don't know how much detail such as parents an children the article actually needs. What is the policy on this trivia for her level of notability? I don't really care and E-romance did not re-insert it, so we can assume that they don't care either.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I saw the message about invented names. When I have included names, I try not forgetting to include sources. As you mentioned, I have received a message to not include personal data of Kelley Armstrong. In Lori Wilde, the source that I used is dead, but the name of "Laura Blabock Moeller" or "Laura Blalock Moeller" appears on multiple pages (example: http://www.trussel.com/books/pseud_m.htm#MO), although apparently it is incorrect.--E-romance (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've also posted this on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard These awards all appear to be industry publicity stunts. As such they don't mean nothing.  Harlequin is part of Mills & Boon's. The processes is that the publisher requires you to  produces  formulaic  pulp fiction to their requirement. . They are a large company that can afford to promote their contracted employees.  I was willing to give her the benefit of the double by bring it here and not AfD but it now looks like this whole thing is author driven rather than a general public recognition or  rightful notability of some sort of  literature merit. In sort: if this author was notable we would have had an article already without her having to create it herself. [Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion]    She has now got us chasing our own tails and wasting our time  over several different t discussion  pages trying to find notability.  Anyone one for AfD?--Aspro (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Could we give her a wp award for most tail chasing on a vanity article?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Jonah Lehrer

 * Jonah Lehrer has recently been involved in a self-plagiarism incident. I believe the article about him was negatively biased to begin with (see the talk page), but since this incident a number of anonymous editors have been repeatedly updating the page with commentary that I believe goes beyond merely reporting the facts of the incident. In addition, these editors have been systematically removing positive facts about Lehrer from the article. See the two diffs below for examples. Considering the on-going nature of the controversy, I think it is important that an effort be made to maintain the neutrality of the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonah_Lehrer&diff=498890020&oldid=498858700

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonah_Lehrer&diff=498831154&oldid=498666688

Lbarquist (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I only read the wiki-link to self-plagiarism and it seems the accusations against him don't apply. It is the same as writing a letter to the editor of 4-5 papers and just copy/pasting the same text. Self-plagiarism seems to only apply when you submit it as a new work in an academic situation type thing. There may be a reason to delete the whole section as fluff.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the self-plagiarism section is valid, as this is a well-documented controversy, regardless of whether he's actually done anything wrong or not. My main objection is using this controversy as an excuse to turn the entire article in to a smearjob. --Lbarquist (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Edits accusing Lehrer of outright plagiarism have been repeatedly made over the past two days as well, see for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonah_Lehrer&diff=499181431&oldid=499152287

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonah_Lehrer&diff=499148487&oldid=499129407

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonah_Lehrer&diff=499075042&oldid=499069671

I believe these edits are potentially libellous in light of the fact that the "plagiarism" constitutes reuse of a quote, and the apparent "victim" of this plagiarism denies that this constitutes plagiarism:

http://blogs.reuters.com/from-reuterscom/2012/06/21/malcolm-gladwell-denies-lehrer-plagiarized-him/

I have requested a third opinion on the talk page, but would be particularly grateful for input from editors experienced with working on biographies of living persons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jonah_Lehrer#Plagiarism_Controversy --Lbarquist (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the latest edit by the IP, although some of what was added wasn't necessarily inappropriate. As a whole, though, it was problematic. Lbarquist, I'm sure you have nothing but good intentions, but two things. First, don't edit-war over this sort of thing. Claiming a BLP exemption from edit-warring is problematic and you'd have a tough time demonstrating it here. Second, don't use words like "libellous". They are legal terms and are frowned upon. Finally, I have issued 3RR warnings both to you and to the IP (couldn't do one without the other). My suggestion is you back off and stick to the Talk page and this board (and any other appropriate form of dispute resolutiion). If the battle continues, the article will end up being fully protected at whatever state it's in when the admin imposes the protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Manipulated picture...
To whom it may concern

I just would like to inform you that someone manipulated of the profile pics of Charmaine Clarice Pempengco on her wikipedia file today from around between 8:30 pm to 9:00 pm time here in Japan the picture have some remark which is unpleasant words and I tried to help about it but can`t do anyhing so I`m glad that it is back to normal her profile in few minutes. I`m just hoping that someone who did this should be trace or caught and I hope that this would not happen any more to my friend.. thank I hope my request can be given the action as soon as possible for the sake of her reputation her family friends and her fan who are already concerned about this matter. Respectfully yours Jocelyn Seto Japan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josie854 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been dealt with, no guarantee it won't happen again though. Image is on Commons awaiting SD. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

James Jannard
I see multiple problems with this BLP. The subject is undoubtedly notable as the founder of Oakley, but the sources for much of the info don't stand up to scrutiny. 2 of 5 sources are a "page not found" or a 404. One is a personal website, but the history link- in which the pertinent info would presumably be found- doesn't work (that may be my browser though.)The Forbes source looks good, confirming he is the founder of Oakley, as well as his part in a motion camera company that also has a WP page, Red Digital Cinema Camera, which also might need a look, but I'll leave that to others. Anyway, all that I could fix myself. My main concern bringing this here is that the 5th source, looks OK (sort of), but upon a closer inspection reveals what appears to be a cut-and-paste into the personal life section of his article (though some info was changed, for instance the source lists 11 grandchildren, but the article says he has 12, so somebody changed something). So either this is a cut-and-past from the source, OR the source is copying info directly from WP (which I think is OK, but it's not attributed, and would make it invalid as a source in the article). Either way, this part is a little beyond my experience as an editor, and I was hoping someone else would take a look. My gut tells me this article is going to need to be trimmed down significantly. Quinn &#10041;SUNSHINE 14:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is now "trimmed", although I left in material that is deadlinked. I have concerns about the company articles, but I haven't done anything with them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Death of Ian Tomlinson
An editor reverted an edit I made, citing BLP. The edit makes no reference to any living person. The edit states that Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed. That he was unlawfully killed is not in dispute, and the article itself expands on this in the third paragraph, and in the body. Does the edit contravene the BLP policy? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.118.169 (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears the issue of whether Ian was unlawfully killed is very much in dispute. That statement is not supported in the references I looked at. From what I read it has not been conclusively determined what caused the abdominal bleeding. That will be the issue at the trial of the police officer. It would seem a fair statement to say that Ian collapsed and died some time after being struck and pushed from behind by a police officer.Coaster92 (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this runs into an issue of legalese. It is entirely true that Ian Tomlinson was found to have been unlawfully killed. In this context, we are referring to the specific legal term unlawful killing, a pre-trial verdict in English law. It is not a formal charge or even accusation against the police officer involved, who was not even named in the verdict. Rather, it is a verdict concerning the circumstances of death, meant to guide the decision on whether to prosecute. I suppose this is similar in the United States to a grand jury recommending an indictment, even though it is still up to the prosecutor. The more detailed and less-easily misinterpreted wording is found in the third paragraph of the lede, as the OP stated. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of that term is supported by high-quality sources and does not violate BLP. Slimvirgin's edit was not constructive.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As Someguy1221 and Nomoskedasticity say, that he was unlawfully killed is not in dispute. An inquest found that he was, numerous sources say that he was, and our article says that he was. I really can't see how the edit violates BLP. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I support Slims edit - and as the IP had reverted it - and the issue is under dispute and there is no consensus here as yet I have removed the disputed - I think its just a matter of wording - but a bit more discussion seems required - personally I like slims edit - and explain in the body or a bit more detail in the lede would perhaps help  - Tomlinson collapsed and died twenty minutes after an encounter with a London policemen and the such and such court later adjudged he had been unlawfully killed -  You  really  can  16:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Youreallycan - could you say whether or not you feel that the edit violates BLP, and why? Cheers. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Its more a matter of sensitive and caring neutral reporting - your desired addition imo just gives undue weight to the outcome of the investigation and almost asserts/could be interpreted that it was deliberate and premeditated - due to the focus only on the outcome of the investigation - the BLP violation would then be against the policeman - You  really  can  17:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't feel that the edit asserts anything about anyone other than Ian Tomlinson. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tomlinson was a person that was unlawfully killed is clearly about more than Tomlinson when somone is accused of allegations in this respect - We can and should take as much care in reporting this while the trial is ongoing - if someone is found guilty of anything in a legal court then we can/will report it then -  You  really  can  17:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tomlinson was unlawfully killed whether or not any particular individual might be found guilty of an associated crime. To emphasize: even if the person currently on trial is acquitted, it will remain the case that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you take the edit by itself, it says nothing about anyone else. It says simply that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed. If you are concerned that juxtaposing the sentence about the unlawful killing with sentence about the manslaughter charge might lead readers to infer that the unlawful killing verdict led to the manslaughter charge, then you shouldn't be, because that is exactly what happened. There were to be no charges, then the inquest decided that Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed, and as a result of that decision the manslaughter charge was brought. The CPS issued a statement saying that it brought the manslaughter charge as a result of the unlawful killing inquest. Nothing in the edits implies anything about guilt or premeditation. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I support the IP's addition. It is well-sourced and encyclopedic. Tomlinson was unlawfully killed. It may be that we can compromise on the wording but really this should have been done already rather than just reverting this change. --John (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - there is not yet a consensus here - the wording is important as I stated - and made a suggestion for discussion - the content was disputed and removed in good faith citing BLP issues and should not have been replaced without consensus discussion - the reverting/WP:BRD violation  was done by the IP that is desirous of the addition - diff -   You  really  can  17:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There are two separate issues here:


 * First, on the issue of adding "unlawfully killed" in Wikipedia's voice to the first sentence -- this confuses a fact with a value. It's a fact that he collapsed and died. It was an inquest jury's opinion (a value) that he was unlawfully killed, but the IP wants to express that opinion in Wikipedia's voice. There is a currently a criminal trial underway to decide whether to uphold that opinion, and so the focus of our concern, per BLP, has to swing to the defendant, Simon Harwood. To argue that this is not a BLP violation because the sentence does not name a living person is to split hairs, because there is only one person accused in relation to the death. The lead explains carefully, in the third paragraph, the chronology of legal steps -- including the inquest jury's verdict -- and how one decision led to the next. I would like to retain that structure, so we can say "X said this, and Y said that," rather than expressing issues of opinion in Wikipedia's voice. If the inquest jury had ruled that it was an accidental death, the same editors would not be arguing that the article should begin: "Ian Tomlinson was an English newspaper vendor who died accidentally on his way home from work ..." If that is correct -- if they would not want the article to begin that way -- I'd appreciate it if they would explain what the difference is.
 * The second issue is that the court has expressed concern about some of the pre-trial reporting in this case. Editors who live within the jurisdiction of the court may want to take note of that. I would therefore like to keep this article very clean and stable for the duration of the trial, which will be up to five weeks from June 18. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * An inquest jury's conclusion on a matter of this sort is not an "opinion" or "value" (by the way, you appear to misunderstand what the fact/value distinction is about). On the contrary: this conclusion is a legal fact.  As I have explained above, that fact will not change even if Harwood is acquitted.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just on my way out, so I'll add a fuller reply later, but I'd like to quickly address your first point. By that logic, we shouldn't say that people are murdered because that would be a value judgement not a fact. Could you explain the difference? 87.113.118.169 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question for Nomoskedasticity: If the inquest jury had ruled that it was an accidental death, would you want the article to begin: "Ian Tomlinson was an English newspaper vendor who died accidentally on his way home from work ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to object to it -- but it's really not a terribly pertinent question, because if the death had been ruled accidental the whole incident likely wouldn't be notable enough for an article. If you don't respond to my point about the independence of the legal fact, I'll conclude that you're conceding it; it's a far more pertinent point.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If the inquest jury had ruled it was an accident in May 2011, we would have deleted the article? No, of course not, and it would have been absurd to start that article by claiming as a fact that it was an accident. This is logic 101. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To reach the unlawful killing verdict, the jury had to be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt", the same threshold used in criminal trials. I understand the need to handle this issue sensitively, but let's not obfuscate by calling this "a value". Leaky  Caldron  18:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The proposition "Ian Tomlinson collapsed and died" expresses a fact about the world.
 * The proposition "Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed" expresses an opinion. It's the same kind of sentence, in logic, as "That girl is pretty."
 * The proposition "An inquest jury ruled that Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed" expresses a fact.

The IP wants to express the second proposition (an opinion) in the first sentence in Wikipedia's voice as if it were a fact. Again, I ask: if the inquest jury had ruled it was an accident, would you want to start the article with "Ian Tomlinson was a newspaper vendor who was accidentally killed"? No, no one would be arguing for that. But it would have exactly the same status as the proposition you are supporting.

The best position for the inquest verdict is in the third paragraph, where it's properly attributed, and where we explain how it followed the CPS's refusal to prosecute, and how the CPS position was changed by it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We're well advised, I think, not to descend into philosophical discussions about what constitutes a fact and what an opinion. (It's obvious, though, that you don't understand the concept of a legal fact.)  What remains factual here in a broader sense is that reliable sources have reported that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed.  It is not a BLP violation to have our article say so.  This has nothing to do with whether Harwood has not been convicted; once again, the inquest verdict will not change even if he is acquitted.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I agree with Nomoskedasticity here. We can haggle about the wording but the article has to reflect the current coverage of the legal situation as reported by reliable sources. --John (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @SlimVirgin. So why did you feel it right to start this article with "The murder of PC Keith Blakelock...occurred"? What's the difference between a murder verdict and unlawful killing verdict? But all of this is simply obfuscating the issue. You reverted the edit citing BLP, but you have yet to explain how you feel that the edit violates BLP. Could you please do that? 87.113.118.169 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Historic versions of articles are not worthy of comparrisons but you will notice that article reflects the current policy and is now titled under - Death of Keith Blakelock - You  really  can  20:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I used that version because it's the one SV links from her user page, so presumably one she stands behind. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Had I been writing the Blakelock article alone, I would have preferred death of, and that's indeed what it was moved to. The situation is anyway not comparable because there was no verdict in that case. The situation here is that some editors want (a) to place an inquest jury's verdict (opinion) in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution, as though "unlawfully killed" were a state of nature that no one disputes, and (b) to do that while a criminal trial is ongoing to determine whether Tomlinson was killed. Both are inappropriate, but (b) is particularly so, and I have to wonder why an editor would choose this, of all times, to try to add that to the first sentence. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There must have been a verdict. Surely you didn't write that a murder occurred without a jury saying so. I'm not familiar with the case, but if you really did do that, then you did exactly what you're objecting to here: wrote that a murder occurred in Wikipedia's voice. I genuinely think that you have misunderstood the relationship between the inquest and the trial, and that that misunderstanding is why you are objecting so strongly to this edit. The trial is not to determine whether or not Tomlinson was killed. That has already been determined. The trial is to determine whether it was the PC who killed him. Even if if the PC is acquitted, it will still be correct to write that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @SlimVirgin. Also, you wrote above that the purpose of the trial is decide whether or not to uphold the unlawful killing verdict. You have entirely the wrong end of the stick. As Nomoskedasticity pointed out above, the unlawful killing verdict will stand regardless of the outcome of the manslaughter trial. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes the coroners court adjudged that, but its still undue imo to lead into the article in the lede unexplained with the comment as you desire to do, especially as it was leading to the reader as you desired to present it, followed immediately by the manslaughter charge - we can wait and report this much more clearly in the lede  in eight weeks when the trial is over - please note - there is no censorship at all, its just a matter of undue in the lede - all the details remain clearly presented in the article.  You  really  can  21:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * - The dispute around the article and the large changes to it since awarded that benchmark in 2010 lead me to dispute the current contents status as a Featured article -  You  really  can  20:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's an excellent article, fully deserving of its FA status. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It would be good if you would respect the amount of work and thought that went into it, including the efforts to balance opinions and sources, and retain accuracy while being fair. What you're suggesting here would cause the quality of the article to drop, because it would tell the reader in the first sentence: "Here is what Wikipedia thinks about this. Here it is, upfront and in your face. We agree with the inquest jury and we will agree with them no matter what verdict the criminal trial produces." That's not how I wrote the article, and I wouldn't stand by it if it adopted that position. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't do that. It merely states the facts. It's not saying anything about what Wikipedia thinks. You could just easily argue that by avoiding stating the most salient fact of the entire article in the first sentence, that Wikipedia is making its own voice heard. I'm not suggesting that you have an agenda here; I'm just pointing out that de-emphasising a fact is just as POV as over-emphasising one. What we need to do is to strike the correct balance. To my eye, avoiding saying that he was unlawfully killed, is much more jarring that saying it. I do respect the amount of work you've put into the article, and I would hate to think that you could no longer stand behind it, but I do think you're wrong on this point.87.113.118.169 (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that, yes, we will agree with the inquest verdict no matter what verdict the criminal trial produces. I think that's where the confusion lies. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you answer the question I asked above? If the inquest jury had decided it was an accident, would you want the article to begin: "Ian Tomlinson was a newspaper vendor who was accidentally killed on the way home from work"?


 * Now imagine that someone is found guilty of manslaughter. Would you want the article to begin: "Ian Tomlinson was a newspaper vendor who was accidentally killed on the way home from work. Police officer X was convicted of his manslaughter in 2012"?


 * The problem is that you're thinking of this in terms of your opinion, rather than in terms of structure. You agree with the inquest jury, so it feels okay to you. But look at the structure instead: "Ian Tomlinson was a newspaper vendor who [insert whatever the opinion of an inquest jury was] on his way home."


 * Now imagine in addition that it's an inquest jury in a country whose judicial system you absolutely don't trust. Would you still want to insert their opinion as fact in Wikipedia's voice? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is bizarre. You are injecting a great deal of yourself into the editing of this article (in addition to making simple errors, such as claiming that the trial currently underway is all about determining whether Tomlinson was killed).  The most important thing about this entire incident is that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed, a fact reported in a wide array of high-quality sources.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @SV. Why? We do not need to imagine anything here. We have a bunch of reliable sources that report exactly what a legally constituted court found beyond reasonable doubt. There is no need to postulate anything else. As for agreeing with the verdict, that has nothing to do with anything. All the IP is doing is stating the facts, his opinion on the matter is neither here nor there. Your argument on this very rare occasion is unconvincing. Leaky  Caldron  22:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm asking people to imagine the same sentence structure containing different words because that's the way people test their thinking to find out whether it makes sense, or whether it reflects prejudice. See Critical thinking or thought experiment. Leaky, could you answer the question I asked? If the inquest jury verdict had been one you strongly disagreed with -- accidental death, say -- would you want our article to state it as fact in the first sentence? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah -- so the point is that you strongly disagree with the accidental killing verdict?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

@SV. Regardless of my personal opinion, no I would not have accidental verdict in the opening sentence. I'm just not convinced by your own arguments for excluding the unlawful killing. I think YRC makes a better argument about weight and that is where you would be better advancing the case, not tangling with the legal aspects which seem problematic for you on this occasion. Leaky Caldron  22:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would you not want that inquest verdict (accident) in the first sentence? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't write that because it sounds odd. And that is exactly why I don't like the current version. It sounds odd to write an article about a newspaper vendor who collapsed and died on his way home from work. Huh? In fact, of the two, an article about a man who died walking home from work is more baffling than one who died because he had an accident walking home from work. Regarding the structure, I think you're took hung up on that. A structure is a framework which can act as a starting point, but not every article is going to fit neatly into that framework. This article is about the death of Ian Tomlinson, so it's entirely appropriate to talk about the manner of his death in the first sentence. It would be inappropriate not to do so. His death is the subject of the article. It's not as though this is an article about newspaper vending, and we suddenly whip out a killing to juice it up. Having the opening the way it the way it is now invites questions: what am I missing? what are you not telling me?
 * I'd add that I think you would better understand our positions if you didn't assume that we're all hopelessly biased and are allowing out judgements to be clouded. I really don't think that's the case. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, if one inquest jury verdict sounds odd stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice, they all do. That is the point here. Look at Death of Princess Diana: " ... Diana, Princess of Wales died as a result of injuries sustained in a car accident .." This is a fact that no one can dispute, as is "collapsed and died" with Tomlinson. We don't start the Diana article by stating the inquest jury as a fact. I think you should find an article that does that, to see whether there is precedent for this on Wikipedia, because I have never seen it.


 * Also, because your edit is being challenged, I would like you to find a high-quality source that expresses itself exactly as you want our first sentence to -- where the inquest verdict is stated as fact, without any form of attribution. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not because it's an inquest verdict that it sounds odd. The current version is not an inquest verdict. It sounds odd because it's an article about a newspaper vendor who died walking home from work. That's an odd thing to write an article about. Regarding the verdict, I didn't follow your argument about the Keith Blakelock article. Why is it okay to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that he was murdered, but not okay to say that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed? I don't know if I'll be able to find a source to say precisely what the edit says, but I don't need to. You know the rules better than I do. If anyone insists, then the sentence can be changed to say "an inquest found..." but that just makes it more cumbersome. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's one: it is now official that the newspaper vendor, Ian Tomlinson, was unlawfully killed 87.113.118.169 (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's Paul Lewis saying something that is factually incorrect, and which would violate our BLP policy 87.113.118.169 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed revision
I think the fundamental issue is that the lead as it stands goes from Point B - i.e. Tomlinson having "collapsed and died" - to Point D - i.e. the current manslaughter trial. We are missing Point A - Tomlinson being struck by a police baton - and Point C - the inquest verdict. I would agree categorically that the latter cannot be stated in the blunt manner the IP has suggested, but by the same token I think it's an important enough milestone in the case not to be left until the end of the third paragraph.

I'm also a little surprised at various comments which appear to seek to minimise the significance and standing of the inquest verdict, such as Someguy1221's claim that it is, "a pre-trial verdict... similar in the United States to a grand jury recommending an indictment." An inquest is a properly constituted judicial process in and of itself. An "unlawful killing" verdict may lead to a criminal trial of an individual or group of individuals, but it is not an automatic part of the latter process, and in some instances no such trial takes place (cf. Terry Lloyd). On the other hand, an inquest might return a "suicide," "accidental killing" or other verdict, but a subsequent criminal trial may reach a different conclusion.

Personally I would favour an opening paragraph stating Points A-thru-D in their entirety, e.g.:
 * "Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died in the City of London, while on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 summit protests, shortly after being struck by with a baton and pushed to the ground by a police officer. In May 2011 an inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing, ruling that unreasonable force had been used. The trial of PC Simon Harwood, the police officer accused of Tomlinson's manslaughter, opened on 18 June 2012 at Southwark Crown Court, and is expected to last up to five weeks. Harwood has pleaded not guilty."

The outcome of the trial will change the nature of Point D, but really it'll just be a question of either reporting a guilty verdict, or framing a not guilty one with, "However..." The inquest verdict will stand, no matter what the outcome of Harwood's trial, unless it is specifically over-turned, e.g. by a second inquest. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can support that. (Nice analysis of the current version, too.)  10:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Nomoskedasticity (talk)
 * I'll be interested to hear what everyone feels about your suggested opening. In my opinion, there is a much stronger implication of causality in your version than in mine. My version makes no link between the policeman's baton strike and the death. It might well be that the defense claims that it was not the baton strike but a heart attack which caused the death, as the initial inquest concluded. If there were not an ongoing trial, I would prefer your version, and it's the way I would have written it. With the trial in progress, I'm uneasy about your version for precisely the reasons that SV is uneasy about mine. We could write it that way, because there is nothing inacurate in it, and I won't object if there is consensus for it.
 * Regarding the inquest, I feel that he lead would be much improved by including details about the roles of Freddy Patel and Paul Mathews, but that's a debate for another day.87.113.118.169 (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A good overview - much better, - You  really  can  10:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Read this earlier and thought it made a lot more sense, well done. One BBC TV report this week had him returning back to his hostel after drinking most of the day (rather than returning home from work) but that would not alter the suggested restructure. Leaky  Caldron  10:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 87, I presume that by "the initial inquest" you actually mean the first postmortem/autopsy, which is not the same thing at all. The inquest is the judicial process which considered all the evidence - including the three postmortems - with the jury reaching a verdict of "unlawful killing." The second and third postmortems disagreed with the first (i.e. the heart attack), instead attributing Tomlinson's death to internal bleeding resulting from blunt force trauma. It is now a given that that was the cause of Tomlinson's death. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant the initial autopsy. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the extent to which the defence will be able to refer to the first autopsy, and to cast doubt on the inquest verdict, but if they can, I'm sure they will. They'll want to muddy the water. In my eye, your version makes a case for the prosecution, SV's leans towards the defence, and mine, though the ugliest, makes a case for neither. I fully appreciate that others read the three versions differently, and if the consensus is that your version or SV's is the most neutral, then that's the one we should go with, unequivocally. When I made my initial edit, my inclination was to write it very much in the way that you have, but doing so seems to me to lead the reader inexorably to the conclusion that the PC killed Tomlinson by hitting him with his baton. Given the facts, it difficult not to do that, but in the circumstances perhaps we should go out of our way not to do so. My version simply states that he was killed, and that the PC is accused of killing him. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing new in this discussion that wasn't already talked to death in the previous one a year ago, and I'm still in full agreement with SlimVirgin's line of argument. I am almost fine with Nick Cooper's wording, though I think the first sentence tries to cram in too many points and ends up being too hard to follow on the first attempt. Since the man's job is not of major significance, how about we simplify it to the following:


 * "Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English man who collapsed and died shortly after a police officer struck him and pushed him to the ground during the 2009 G-20 summit protests in the City of London."

Stating a sequence like this does not necessarily imply causation. Stating that he "was unlawfully killed" certainly does. In particular, it directly rejects what will presumably be the officer's defence: that Tomlinson was in extremely frail health and that any random shock could have given him the heart attack. – Smyth\talk 14:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Stating that he was unlawfully killed says nothing about who killed him. In my opinion, Nick's version comes closer to doing that. Perhaps the defence will argue that it was attempts at resuscitation that caused his internal injuries, or they might explain it in a way that we haven't thought of. My point is that Nick's version leads the reader to draw a conclusion, and leading someone to believe that they've drawn their own conclusion, is actually a better way of convincing them something is true than simply coming straight out and declaring that it is. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is this discussion taking place here? The article is not a BLP.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * People involved are living - You  really  can  16:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nick, thanks for posting your version. I'm usually not keen on the lead-within-the-lead approach. The only reason I moved the trial into the first sentence is that the anon did. This was the lead before that, where the issues are dealt with chronologically, rather than news-style. WP:LEAD cautions against news-style.


 * The lead-within-the-lead approach seeks to fit what the editors on the day feel are the key points into the first paragraph or first sentence. So you end up with an upside-down pyramid, where you're referring to issues without context or chronology. You lose the stability of the encyclopaedic style, because the lead-within-the-lead has to keep changing in response to developments, or as people arrive to add their preferred key point to the first sentence. This is how our most contentious articles are regularly destabilized.


 * So in order of preference, I would choose (a) the original version, where we simply say that he collapsed and died, then explain what happened in the second and third paragraphs; (b) Smyth's version where we refer to what happened just before it, but with no mention of "unlawfully killed"; (c) this verson, where we mention only "collapsed and died," and the ongoing trial, or (d) Nick's version, though I'd like to tweak it a little. I oppose 87.113.118.169's version, because it seeks to add unattributed opinion to the first sentence.


 * I agree with Smyth's point about the importance of not pre-empting the conclusion of the trial. I also agree with 87.113.118.169 that Nick's version might be problematic with the trial going on. I would prefer that we leave the lead as it was until the trial is over. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an unalterable fact, a recorded legal finding, that he was unlawfully killed. It does not compromise the trial, it will not be altered by the criminal trial. The only connection is that the inquest finding enabled the prosecution authority to change their mind about bringing a prosecution. The officer was not named by the inquest jury - that's not allowed but their unlawful killing finding is absolute. Leaky  Caldron  16:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SV, could you say why feel that's okay in to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that Keith Blakelock was murdered, but not okay to say that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed? 87.113.118.169 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to continue this discussion longer than necessary during the trial, and going off into tangents will do that, so here's one last response about Blakelock. First, as I said above, if I were writing that article alone, I would use other wording, and I supported the move of the page to "Death of." Secondly, it's a completely different situation. There's no question that someone killed Blakelock. There is a question mark over the causal link between what happened to Tomlinson and his death, an argument that will be part of the defence case. Our lead should not say anything that seeks to undermine that.


 * Why are you so keen to change the first sentence during the trial? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your concern. The facts of the case including the various PMs and the inquest are public record and will be used at the trial as appropriate by prosecution and defence. The jury have been warned not to research the subject. We are not introducing any risk here by stating the facts. Leaky  Caldron  18:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SV, if you don't want to continue the discussion during the trial, that's entirely your choice, but it won't prevent others from doing so (and then editing the article per any consensus that results). You persist in giving more weight to the trial (in relation to the "unlawful killing" issue) than it merits.  You have yet to acknowledge the point, so let's try once more: even if Harwood is acquitted, it will remain a legal fact that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed.  Is that a proposition you somehow disagree with?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The relationship between an inquest verdict and the verdict of a jury during a criminal trial is complex and we can't get into it here. Perhaps the judge will give some direction. For example, I believe that an inquest held after a criminal trial may not deliver a verdict that is inconsistent with the verdict of the trial jury. What is unusual in this case is that the CPS declined to prosecute, then there was the inquest verdict, and then the CPS change of position, which led to a real danger that the finding of the inquest would prejudice any trial. If the finding of the criminal trial turns out to be inconsistent with that of the inquest, then I don't know what the legal position would be.


 * But for our purposes, we should not add anything to the lead that seeks to undermine the defence case during the trial. And regardless of that, we should not be stating opinions in Wikipedia's voice, particularly not when challenged or when it concerns a living person. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever the result of a following criminal trial it cannot be inconsistent with the inquest verdict. The inquest verdict is only about what happened to the subject of the inquest it makes no statement about anyone else.  It is perfectly possible for an inquest to find that a person was unlawfully killed but for a subsequent criminal trial to find a specific individual (even if it is the 'obvious one') innocent of a crime. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it an opinion or a fact that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed? Is it an opinion or a fact that Blakelock was murdered? Do you feel that it is more important that we don't undermine the defence case that that we don't undermine the prosecution case? Why can't we get into the relationship between a criminal trial and an inquest? Does stating that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed violate the BLP policy? 87.113.118.169 (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If we said x was unlawfully killed by y (or as a result of y's actions) it would. If we say that an inquest found that x was unlawfully killed, clearly not. Leaky  Caldron  20:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We cannot choose to say 'x was unlawfully killed by y' because that is not what the coroner's court said. In fact, the coroner's court never says that, because it is not their job to do so.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know we can't, I didn't suggest we should. But we can say that an inquest found that he was unlawfully killed. Leaky  Caldron  22:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like we agree then. The point I was making was that the option of 'x was unlawfully killed by y' is not available for an inquest, specifically because it is not the job of an inquest to pre-empt any possible criminal proceedings. Also we are not free to make our own decisions on this matter any more that we could decide that a person found guilty of a crime was innocent.  Tomlinson was unlawfully killed according to the law in the jurisdiction in which the events took place.  We do not have the option of changing that fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (replying to SV) Your initial objection to the edit was clearly predicated on a misunderstanding of the role of the inquest and its relationship to the manslaughter trial. Several people have pointed that out to you but have completely ignored them. I can't tell whether you've taken the information on board or not, so I mentioned Blakelock in attempt to address the same issue from a different angle.
 * Regarding the first sentence, I want to make it as neutral and as accurate as possible. As I said above, I feel that de-emphasis can be just as problematic as over-emphasis. I feel that it's proper to address the manner of Tomlinson's death in the first sentence of an article about his death. I think it's better to address it in the first sentence than in the third paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.118.169 (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is not our job to challenge legal verdicts. The verdict of the inquest was that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed and it will remain so regardless of the results of an criminal trials which may follow.


 * Whatever trials follow we cannot undermine them by repeating a widely reported legal inquest verdict; the verdict is well known to everyone concerned. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I could go with user Nick Cooper's version above. He, NC, seems very reasonable, thoughfull and measured, nice work :) --Mollskman (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the impact of the inquest on the criminal case, I believe some of the above comments are overemphasizing it. The criminal court is generally considered more significant and thorough than the coroner's court. This is why the coroner's proceedings are always suspended until any and all criminal cases have been settled. The lack of any such cases caused an unusual reversal in this instance, where the CPS stated that new information revealed during the inquest caused them to reconsider their original decision not to charge. However, the unlawful killing verdict does not place the CPS under any obligation to charge anyone with anything, and neither would an accidental death verdict prevent them from charging if they wished to do so.


 * Finally, since the criminal court jury is expected to make its decision based on the facts of the events surrounding the death and nothing else, I assume that any mention of the coroner's court or its verdict will be completely inadmissible in the criminal trial. – Smyth\talk 02:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The murder convictions of Guildford Four stood for fourteen years. If Wikipedia existed at the time, your principle would require us to blankly call them murderers for that entire time, despite the continual (and eventually successful) arguments for their innocence. It's a fact that a certain legal judgement happened, and we must report that, but that does not make the content of the judgement a Fact That Shall Be True Unto The Ending Of The World. Can you not understand that distinction?


 * I know I'm inviting confusion by introducing yet another legal term here, but I'd say the distinction is that Wikipedia should only state something as a fact when there is no reasonable doubt about it. That is a question about which we must use our own judgement, and cannot be overridden by or abdicated to any particular legal system, no matter how reliable that system generally is. – Smyth\talk 02:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course we refer to convicted murderers as murderers. Are you you suggesting that every reference to a murderer in WP should be of the form, Arthur Axekiller, whom a jury convicted of murdering Imogen Innocent... rather than Arthur Axekiller, who murdered Imogen Innocent...? I disagree that we should use our own judgement to pick and choose which legal decision we agree with, and which we don't. If there is a RS which casts doubts on a particular decision, then we can use that, but we can't use our own judgement. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To have an article say "X is a murderer" is making a serious factual assertion about what that person did. It may or may not be justified depending on the sources, but it goes far beyond merely reporting a legal outcome. If you can't agree with that, then I don't see how we can proceed. – Smyth\talk 13:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In the article, "unlawfully killed" is linked to our article "Unlawful killing". It's clear that the article is saying that an inquest has found that he was unlawfully killed. WP is not shy about labelling people murderers, BTW--we have an entire category devoted to it. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I would agree with SV that it would perhaps be better to simply return to just the "collapsed and died" (Point B, as I described it) opening sentence during the trial period, and let the other details "evolve" out of the rest of the lead. I think the problem arises that if any other elements are added that early on, they really also need others to contextualise them immediately. For example, if the trial details (Point D) are added, it really demands some detail of why one might be necessary, i.e. the inquest verdict (Point C), and/or the prior contact with the police (Point A). It's really a question of either Point A on its own, or all four, and pending the outcome of the trial the former would probably be the wisest choice. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does the fact of an ongoing trial matter, and how will things change after it's finished? Are you under the impression that it will no longer be true that Tomlinson was "unlawfully killed" if Harwood is acquitted?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. However, the same concerns about what the article says while the trial is in progress are very obviously reflected in these BBC News reports: . As I said previously, a four-point opening paragraph would still be appropriate after the trial, the verdict determining whether the sentence detailing it begins with "However..." or not. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So, SV came to your page, Nick, and your page only, to ask you to comment here. You proposed an amendment which was almost unanimously accepted, but SV demurred. You then decided that you no longer supported your own version, but SV's instead. I can see why SV asked you to comment, Nick. I find the explanation you give above, as to why you no longer your own proposal, unfathomable. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds a bit conspiratorial on your part. SV and I have worked on some of the same articles in the past, but I think that overall I have disagreed with her more times than we have agreed, which I presume doesn't reflect what you seem to be suggesting.
 * In this particular case, it is my position the various points - and particularly the inquest verdict - can only be included in a "full" four-point lead paragraph; two or three points, of whatever combination, would upset a very delicate balance. We certainly can't use the inquest verdict in the blunt manner you have suggested. The only other alternative is the single-point long-standing version, and after further consideration of the sub judice issues, that one has the edge. As has been noted, the current trial will be over in five weeks or so, and we can surely bear waiting it out? Nick Cooper (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't really belong on this noticeboard.
You're all only here because SlimVirgin unwisely tried to play the BLP card in an edit summary. This obviously wasn't a BLP issue at all, because it was an edit that turned an article that mentioned unlawful killing five times into an article that merely mentioned it four times. This is a writing style dispute, it's getting lengthy, and the last time that you all had it it lasted for three and a bit months, which is quite a long time for a section on this noticeboard (which is set to have discussions archived after five days). Is there any chance of having it on the article's talk page? Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But this article does effect living people and this board draws alot of people who are uninvolved, so thats good. This isn't the end of the world to discuss and try to find concensus for the lede here. --Mollskman (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Uncle G, this was an attempt to game the system. The article is not a BLP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Uncle G. This discussion belongs on the article's talk page, where it will be more visible to interested parties. I think this discussion should be moved there. Before that happens, I think somebody needs to make the call as to whether the consensus is that the edit is or is not a violation of the BLP policy. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It obviously is not a violation of BLP policy for two reasons: the article concerned is not a BLP, to prominently report the verdict of a due legal process is in line with BPL policy. There may be issues with the placement of statements concerning a criminal trial but this should be dealt with on the article's talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Martin. The edit is not a violation of BLP policy because it makes no reference to any living person, and no reference to any living person can be inferred. But I think we need to have an uninvolved party assess the consensus among the participants in this discussion. I'd like specifically to ask Nick, and SV (again) whether they believe that the edit violates the policy. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is crazy WP stuff. I was an uninvolved person until yesterday but now I have expressed an opinion I am 'involved'.  In what way is some other person's view better than mine?  Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I might add that Uncle G seems to have had no previous involvement with the current dispute but experience of this notice board and he has suggest that we go back to the article talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy for Uncle G to make the call, if he feels himself uninvolved. I don't feel that anyone has attempted seriously to make the case that the edit violates the BLP policy.87.113.118.169 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes please Uncle G. The BLP issue in entirely bogus and we should be asked to leave here and return to the article talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't historically force closure of discussion on this noticeboard - and that is a fair reflection of the sensitive nature of the policy imo. If good faith users feel there is a BLP issue we leave it open and allow additional discussion or it gets archived after five days of inactivity - Even if we did force closure here, imo Uncle G would be overly involved to it anyway.  You  really  can  18:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I am going to voluntarily withdraw from what is an obvious misuse of a WP noticeboard. This is my last post here on this subject. I will carry on discussion on the article talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted - although I disagree with your opinion that there has been an obvious misuse of this noticeboard. I am also contributing on the article talkpage - Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson - Regards - You  really  can  18:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Should we move or copy this discussion to the article's talk page? That's where people will expect to find it--ninety five percent of it is nothing to do with BLP--and moving it would allow interested parties to quickly get up to speed with what has been said 87.113.118.169 (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would oppose trying to close this discussion down. If you want to discuss on the talk page, you're free to do so, and if people want to discuss it here, they're also free to do so. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're using this board to make suggestions about the article which have nothing to do with BLP. The proper place to make such suggestions is on the article's talk page, so that interested parties will see the them and can particpate in the discussion. In the secion below, you're (inacurately) assessing the consensus on this noticeboard and attempting to use that as a basis for changes to the article. Discussions of that nature belong on the article's talk page. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your allegations, such as - "you're (inacurately) assessing the consensus on this noticeboard" - I suggest you back off on the unsupported allegations - either provide diffs to support your allegations or retract them and stop making anymore - such allegations when unsupported by diffs are considerd to be personal attacks - You  really  can  19:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion
Despite some posts above to the contrary, this is a genuine and serious BLP issue, because the trial is underway. There's no clear consensus for the proposed change to the first sentence, so I would like to suggest that we restore the previous version of the lead until the trial is over. The first paragraph of that version reads:

"Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died in the City of London on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 summit protests."

Then in the second and third paragraphs, we explain chronologically how events unfolded after the Guardian published the video. By sticking to a chronological sequence, we remove any hint of our own POV.

The trial is expected to last up to five weeks; that is, a verdict is expected by July 23 at the latest. When we have that, we'll be in a better position to decide how to write the first paragraph, and at that point changes to the article will do no harm. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That proposed opening sentence is seriously misleading to readers. As becomes clear later in the article, he did not simply "collapse and die", and we should not allow that impression to be formed in the first paragraph.  Anyway, even if Harwood is acquitted the inquest coroner's verdict of unlawful killing will not be altered.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree there is real issues regarding the trial and we should be very careful not to affect it - Martin replaced his desired position and I have made a small corrective edit to address my concerns but I prefer it if we go with Slim's position above. You  really  can  16:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur. SlimVirgin's exposition is clear and neutral. Inquests are fallible. (See Lindy_Chamberlain-Creighton.) A criminal trial is afoot. Let us be conservative, and see what the trial yields. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * another person who appears to believe the inquest verdict might be changed by the criminal trial... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Nomo. :) Well, I'm not sure if you're familiar with that case I linked to. Over time, more and more evidence came to light until the fourth inquest's findings were diametrically opposite those of the second. I have no problem reporting the inquest findings in the lede, but SlimVirgin's characterisation is my preferred exposition. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am mystified to the point of exasperation at the notion that this article could somehow influence the trial. On the opening day the BBC and other UK broadcasters provided a complete run down of the events leading to the death, including showing and repeating in slow motion the various video footage available and naming the officer in the voice-over. I respect SV and YRC for their extensive contributions and knowledge of BLP policy. I cannot understand their concerns here, given the widespread and detailed media coverage. It doesn't matter if inquests are fallible, so are manslaughter trials. We can only work with what we have, not apply WP:CRYSTAL incorrectly to effectively censor the lead. Leaky  Caldron  17:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is not our job to assess the fallibility of inquests or other legal processes. Are there any reliable sources that suggest that the inquest verdict was wrong?


 * Regarding any effect that we have on any criminal proceedings, the inquest verdict is already in the public domain,not because it was improperly leaked but because that is the purpose of the inquest, to determine and publicly announce the cause of death.


 * If we try to hide (or reduce the impact of) the inquest verdict we are interfering in the due process of law. Some people may think that we know that the inquest verdict referred specifically to the subject of the criminal proceedings, which is not the case.  On the other hand and others may think that we know that the inquest verdict is unreliable, which we do not.  Our duty is to report the facts as established by the appropriate legal authority.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * SV, you have nowhere made any kind of case that the edit you reverted is a violation of BLP policy. Simply stating that there is a trial in progress doesn't come close to a rational argument that edit violates BLP. After ignoring the BLP issue yet again, you yet again declare that the article should be reverted to your preferred version, and now, for good measure, it should be locked in for 5 weeks.
 * This is the place to discuss your reversion of the edit, in justification of which you cited BLP. Discussion of the article should be on the article talk page. A good starting point for that would be the MoS, which has this to say about the first paragraph.


 * The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states the limits of that list.


 * It's clear that the context of, and circumstances and facts surrounding, Tomlinson's death include that he was unlawfully killed. Simply to state that he collapsed and died is to completely ignore the MoS. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to intrude. The actual fact, as SlimVirgin explained earlier, is that an inquest found that he had been unlawfully killed. That's what the lead says. This is a subtle point. I'm sorry you're not grasping it. You may assert that inquests are such infallible sources of truth that we can speak their findings as truth in Wikipedia's voice without inline attribution, but I disagree. I support SlimVirgin's version. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthony, SV is proposing to remove the sentence about the inquest verdict. The first sentence currently contains the information about the verdict, attributed as you appear to support.  But if you support that, then you don't support SV's proposed revision.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not what the version that SV wants to revert to says, Anthony. She opened this section to suggest that the lead be reverted to a version which makes no mention of the unlawful killing verdict until the third paragraph. The MoS extract I quoted describes what should be in the first paragraph. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm being a jerk. I'll look more carefully when I've had some sleep. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. I misread the above description of the current version. Mmm. An even more subtle editorial choice . I hadn't noticed this edit to the first paragraph by Youreallycan a couple of hours earlier . I still support SlimVirgin's version, though. It reads better and is more respectful of the rights of the accused. I'm not going to the barricades over this, though, because I don't see SV's combination of refinement of expression and moral sentiment having any purchase on this forum. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Updated 12:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Summing up response to suggestion

 * I asked above whether there was consensus for the changes to the first paragraph, or whether we should restore the version of the lead before 87.113.118.169 made his first change (i.e. go back to this version of the lead) for the duration of the trial.


 * Those supporting the suggestion (i.e. opposing the changes) are Youreallycan, Anthonyhcole,  Nick Cooper,  and myself.
 * Those in support of the changes are 87.113.118.169, Nomoskedasticity, John, Martin Hogbin, and Leaky caldron.
 * I'm not sure about Mollskmanf and Smyth, so I'll ask them if they want to clarify.
 * You can add me to the first opption above, opposing the change. Thank you, --Mollskman (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * SV, please join the discussion at the article's talk page. Editors from both sides of the argument have continued the discussion there, and have hammered out a version which they all find acceptable. No one is now proposing the version on which you asking people to !vote. The debate has moved on. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A version that you and Martin Hogbin find accceptable has been discussed on the talk page. The point here is to determine whether there's consensus for any change to the first paragraph while the trial is ongoing. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It wasn't just Martin and me--YRC was also there, and Nomoskedasticity has edited the page. Surely the article page is the place to be discussing the article. 87.113.118.169 (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The board attracts more uninvolved editors, and while the trial is going on it seems a little provocative to discuss it on the talk page. With respect, the point now is to determine the consensus of this discussion, not to keep rehashing whether it's valid (it was you who opened it, after all). So please allow that to happen, then we can close it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * SV, the discusion I opened pertained to whether or not the single edit you reverted, citing BLP, did indeed violoate the BLP policy. You made no attempt to explain why you felt that the edit violated the policy. Your argument throughout was: There is a trial in progress, therefore we should revert. That argument has absolutely no grounding in policy, as you well know. Since I made my first post, the article has moved on; it no longer contains the edit you're asking to have reverted, and the original discussion is moot.


 * You're now attempting to conflate straightforward discssion of that single edit with a much larger issue. You want to lock the first paragraph of the article for duration of the trial, again with no grounding in policy. If you want to set that precedent, then I would suggest that you need to start an RfC to attract much broader community input. Are you saying that we should pre-emptively lock the first paragraph of every article which pertains to an ongoing trial? Just the first paragraph? What about trials that are expected to last six months or a year? What about articles like Roman Polanski? He has been the subject of legal proceedings for decades. What about other articles concerning ongoing news stories? How do we decide which version to lock? The version you want to lock convravenes the MoS guidelines. Are you really saying that there are absolutley no circumstances in which the first paragraph should be changed in the next five weeks, or are you just saying that you want your version restored, and you'll keep an eye on things from there? 87.113.118.169 (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm asking whether there is consensus to change the first paragraph. I'd appreciate it if you'd allow other people to comment, rather than repeating the arguments whenever anyone disagrees. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there's no "default version" of the first paragraph at this stage; any suggestion "let's revert to this version" is just that editor expressing his/her preference about what it should be. I also agree that the argument "THERE'S A TRIAL IN PROGRESS!!!" isn't really an argument, certainly not one grounded in a policy that talks about trials in progress.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Slim, you're not asking whether there is "consensus to change the first paragraph". You're asking to "...go back to this version of the lead...for the duration of the trial". If you're genuinely interested in finding consensus, then please join the discussion on the talk page, where good-faith discussion has arrived at a compromise version of the paragraph, acceptable to all involved in the discusion.87.113.118.169 (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nomos, you know that when an article is changed from a long-standing version, and there are objections, the editors seeking to make the change have to obtain consensus. That pertains to all articles, but particularly a contentious one related to living persons, and also particularly to a featured article -- and this is both. As things stand, there is no consensus for the change. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, then -- we can go back to this version. I think it qualifies as long-standing: the first paragraph is pretty close to this one from five months previous.  All set?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "All set" - for what Nomoskedasticity ? An edit against consensus?- "all righty, then"  - lol - your edit summaries are amusing.  You  really  can  21:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SV wanted to go back to a "long-standing version". I found one for her.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is indeed consensus for the current version of the article. It was achieved through discussion on the talk page.87.113.118.169 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Reality check
For the sake of 12 people who have been instructed not to read stuff like this Wikipedia article, SV and others are proposing to write a first sentence that gives a quite seriously misleading impression to the hundreds of people who do read the article every day. It's profoundly silly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think its misleading at all - the en wikipedia article has been mentioned as one location that could provide a reason for an appeal to any outcome and we would not want that to happen - we can and should be extremely cautious and conservative in how we weight our reporting of this case while the trial is ongoing over the next five weeks - You  really  can  19:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that in this jurisdiction, those 12 people are currently far more important that the un-numbered curious of which you speak. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a policy proposal -- which is to say, it's not a policy. I suggest you propose it somewhere, and then we can have a proper discussion about it, instead of applying it (or not) willy-nilly.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP already supports and encourages such cautious and conservative reporting. - You  really  can  16:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The conclusion/application you're drawing from BLP here is not one that I share. Many people don't share it.  Of course, many do -- hence the disputes, with uneven outcomes.  I'm suggesting that those who favor it might want to see it become policy.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Its already policy - its just a matter of interpretation - thats what we do here over and over - hopefully in a not battlefield way - working together although we have differing views to come to a policy driven consensus - You  really  can  16:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * - from the En Wikipedia Policy - WP:BLP - Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. - What part of my comments regarding policy interpretation here do you disagree with Nomoskedasticity? You  really  can  16:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you shouting at me?? I disagree with the application you and others are making of that passage.  This was perfectly clear in my previous post.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I felt the need to highlight the actual policy - its not shouting at you - its highlighting policy. - So you don't disagree with my policy comments here? Is it just just your interpretation of cautious and conservative that we disagree on?  You  really  can  17:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that YRC has altered his comment from 16:52, in contravention of WP:REDACT, in a way that undermines the sense of my subsequent comment. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That shows that YRC simply added the closing formatting (i.e. the three inverted commas) to the quoted text that was presumably omitted in error. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes -- and since without the closed formatting almost the entire post was bolded, my question (why are you shouting at me?) made sense in a way that it no longer does. That's why REDACT advises against it.  Small point, but failing to adhere to it ends up leading to distractions, as is by now obvious.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes a small point indeed - one that if you took a less WP:Battle position in regards to me, would not even need a comment, never mind your wiki lawyering warning on my talkpage - A English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, - seems relevant - as per Nick Cooper - I was clearly adding some missed wiki mark up - I told you I wasn't shouting at you - I was editing from a mobile device - you could also have left a nice note - hey YRC I see you have corrected the wiki mark up - could you please make it clear that you did that - thanks Nomo - As you have been in dispute with me for over two years now without end,  and I have attempted to resolve with you and repeatedly asked you to disengage and requested a voluntary interaction ban, its good that other users are aware of our personal interrelating problem when they consider your repeated pointy complaints. I have asked my mentor User:Dennis Brown to look at this situation with you and attempt to help resolve it - please feel free to comment there - User_talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0 - thanks -  You  really  can  18:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)