Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive185

Best known for
I often see the phrase "best known for" in the first sentence of the lead of BLP's. To my way of thinking, this is an editorial judgement we can do with out. (Unless there is a reliable source that says "he/she is best known for XYZ".) Instead of saying:  Mr. Jones is best known for his role in XYZ film, why can't we just say: Mr. Jones starred in XYZ film? Why the value judgement "best known for"? I see this so often that I thought I would ask here for other opinions in case my thinking is way off track. Examples are Bruce Springsteen, Hector Berlioz, Peter Buck, Nick Mason, Steven Stills, Roger Moore and many more. Any thoughts from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And a follow-up question: In the case of an actor, does inclusion of particular work(s) in the "Known for" feature of IMDb.com] constitute a reliable source for this judgement by an editor? This information is helpful to the reader to quickly establish familiarity with the subject, which is the purpose of the lede (and may be all the information the reader was looking for). Dwpaul (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Drop the "best" and we're fine, in my opinion. Nothing wrong with saying "Johnny Smith (born April 31, 2013) is an American janitor known for his janitor work at Billy Nobody's mall."  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 20:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll support removing it without a source, but there are sources for many of those. How many sources are there about Nick Mason that don't start with "drummer for Pink Floyd"? Saying that X is someone's most famous work is an important part of writing about them - perhaps that rephrasing will suffice? --GRuban (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, just below is a discussion of George Zimmerman. That starts with "best known for his criminal prosecution and acquittal in the shooting of Trayvon Martin". Is this really an editorial judgement we can do without? I can't see starting the article without saying that in some form. --GRuban (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks GRuban, appreciate your input. But ... to me, I see now reason why we can't say: Joe Smith is an American businessman who, after criminal prosecution, was acquitted in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. This way we let the readers make the value judgements. Anyway..... I see that not everyone agrees with my perspective and I thank all of you for adding their views and comments. Cheers!-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 16:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Guy Cobb


Maybe three years since I first came across the biography, which continues to be handled like a private scrapbook page by a WP:SPA. The Daredevils article appears to be a duplicate of the bio. Any thoughts as to deleting, merging, or otherwise improving this would be appreciated. JNW (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Guy Cobb article appears to be a house of cards built on dubious sources. I've removed some text and sources that made no mention of the subject. Edited out fluff not contained in the few sources I could acces. I've removed the entire section on Daredevils as it is unsourced story tellling. I am in the process of editing the rest. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Brilliant--compliments to you and Qwyrxian for weeding through this. Probably a good idea to keep this on the watchlist. Cheers, JNW (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

James Jannard‎
If someone has a chance to review this article and its recent activity, that would be helpful. User:Spieden is editing the article in rather odd ways and persists despite warnings. He now claims he is Jannard in this somewhat threatening comment. Based on the nature of his edits, it's possible, but at a minimum he appears to be cherrypicking what he wants included in the article and what he doesn't, not to mention not providing sources for some of the material (e.g., 14 grandchildren). At first I thought he was a garden-variety-but-not-poop vandal, but now I'm not so sure. He may just be an obstinate article subject. Vandals are easier to deal with. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really, really trying to engage him and suggest more constructive ways of dealing with this, but all I've gotten back are legal threats. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on the talk page and will add the page to my watch list. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Bogdan Rudenko
Per helpdesk request I removed claims of arrest  - which do have a credible source, but I removed it whilst we work it out.

To avoid thread-splits, please respond further on HD.

Per BLP.

88.104.27.75 (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless high quality reliable sources can be found that say he was convicted, the content should be left out of the article per WP:BLPCRIME which says: A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.'-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

K. Michelle
A persistent effory is being made to contradict the subject's stated age. The editors may be right, but, in my view, they're relying on primary sources and original reasearch. BET Music news backs the artist's version. So do some weaker sources.

One warrior just declared his continuing intention to conduct the war, on my talk page, here. Side note: does anyone know what a "stan" is. In context, I'm guessing it's not laudatory. :)

Here's one iteration of changes

and reversion:

Here's my second try today:

And the second time I've been reverted today:

I'm done for the day. Trying to engage the editor on his IP talk page appears simply to have inflamed the situation: User_talk:162.197.126.208 David in DC (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who inserted the sources long ago, thinking that it would bring a stop to this back-and-forth. I'm surprised that this is still going. I thought primary sources were a good thing, not a bad thing. The editors are right (as anyone who went to FAMU from 2000 to 2004 can tell you), but I understand the policy about proof, and "I went to school with her" definitely isn't proof.


 * The problem I see is that I'm not sure what is considered a proper source in a case like this (celebrities lie about their ages all the time) but I do find it contradictory that an archived yearbook (archived at a university library, not some scan from somebody's attic) cannot be used to validate her age, but CAN be used to validate her name. I also have not seen anything where K. Michelle has stated her age or her date of birth either way. It's very possible that people ran with the 1986 birth date because it came from Wikipedia, which (no offense) isn't always a beacon of accuracy.


 * David in DC (talk) has quoted a newspaper as being a proper source, and I did indeed include a newspaper. The Famuan is the Florida A&M University newspaper; its website archives go back to 2002. Furthermore, the sources that David in DC (talk) are using are arguably less legitimate than mine. A gossip blog? BET News.com? Come on, now. Even David acknowledges that his sources are weak.


 * My proposal is this: either acknowledge that her age is disputed (maybe list 1982 or 1986 or have a "age disputed" tag or something), leave the year of birth off entirely, or let the false birthdate stand and add an early life section that shows that K. Michelle's reported age is wrong. Maybe it would be best to let the readers decide. That way, everyone is somewhat happy and an edit war isn't started.


 * Question: how do sources work in regards to pictures, such as yearbook pictures? LoomisSimmons (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a compromise is in order here. Generally WP prefers secondary sources however there are instances when a primary source could trump a secondary source. For example if a news article misrepresents info reported in a court document or a birth certificate posted in a reliable forum. What I suggest is to leaving the birth date out of the lead and discussing the varying reports of her age in the Early Life section.-- — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 01:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the year of birth; I'm glad that's okay. Since the fact that she was a freshman in 2000 and was crowned Miss FAMU in 2003 isn't being disputed, that information can be added. The question now is, what would be considered an appropriate source? I still can't figure out why a library archive isn't sufficient, but if it's not, it's not. No use going back and forth on it. 162.197.126.208 (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Scott Alexander (politician)
The bio for Scott Alexander fits into other Mayor bios in the category Mayors of places in New Jersey. An anonymous user is trying to attack Mayor Alexander and using Wikipedia for political propaganda. I am asking that the board look into this ongoing abuse of Wikipedia. scott alexander [politician]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyboy100 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP is correctly identifying issues with the article. I've also removed text which definitely needs a source if it's added back in. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  02:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Nadine Dorries and accusations of nepotism
I am concerned about the following edit: Given that the cited source does not use the word "nepotism" it seems inappropriate for Wikipedia to use it in a section heading. GabrielF (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that the word "nepotism" infers some wrongdoing. Wikipedia calls it "favoritism granted in politics or business to relatives regardless of merit". We do not know if these appointees are without merit. My personal opinion is that I cannot imagine a very large number of people would want to work for Ms Dorries, so the actual shortlist of candidates may have been very short indeed. Shritwod (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Nepotism doesn't infer wrongdoing. It is a label for bestowing favour on a relative. You may or may not think it is wrong. You may approve of nepotism. You may think its a great idea. Nepotism is simply the word for it. She has employed at least two of her three daughters. Not only are they payed nearly twice the mean for the jobs, they are payed at the very top end compared with other MPs. No-one seriously looking at that would say that it was nothing to do with the fact that they are her daughters. That's beyond the point of reasonableness. Furthermore in many countries it is not permissible for politicians to employ relatives at all: it is regarded as nepotism regardless of any "merits" the relative might have. Your imaginings that not many people would want to work for Dorries is ridiculous and your own invention. Plucked out of the air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.42.194 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It does, actually, infer wrongdoing, according to both the dictionary (the unfair practice by a powerful person of giving jobs and other favors to relatives) and our article (Nepotism is favoritism granted in politics or business to relatives regardless of merit). So unless we have some pretty good sources that say exactly that, we can't either. --GRuban (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Nepotism is widely defined as the practice of UNFAIRLY giving favours or employment to relatives or associates. Employing relatives per se is not necessarily nepotism. Now, I certainly have my own opinion on the employment of Ms Dorries relatives, but that is simply my opinion. We must be careful not to present opinion as encyclopaedic facts. WP:BLP is one of the most important Wikipedia policies when it comes to asserting facts about living individuals. So the assertion that these appointments were nepotistic (i.e. unfair in some way) needs to be backed up. Two sentences on the Sky news website (neither of which contain the word in question) are not sufficient to establish this claim. Shritwod (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfairness and wrongdoing are not the same. She hasn't broken the rules or any law and the use of the word nepotism doesn't imply that. The word is generally what is used when this is being discussed eg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6435511/MPs-expenses-let-them-pay-for-nepotism-themselves.html

Wikipedias own article on "Nepotism" has the following under the UK headline.

"In February 2010, Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said that more than 200 MPs used Parliamentary allowances to employ their own relatives in a variety of office roles. He suggested that the practice should be banned."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.9.96 (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph article you cited doesn't address Dorries specifically. GabrielF (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The source you have that mentions nepotism, doesn't mention Dorries (and is an opinion column anyway). The source you have that mentions Dorries doesn't mention nepotism, wrongdoing, or even the word you prefer, unfairness. So we can't either. We need very good and specific sources for such a negative claim about a living person. I'm reverting the section heading per WP:BLP and the rough consensus here, and strongly recommend you don't restore it without excellent sources specifically accusing Dorries of "nepotism", that word, or we'll need admin tools to come into play. --GRuban (talk)

"why Nadine Dorries makes a perfect I'm A Celebrity candidate.... She can generate headlines, practice hypocrisy and nepotism" http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/im-a-celebrity-2012-a-flair-for-guff-1419739 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.234.73 (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I provide the asked for link and nobody has any comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.62.209 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's my comment: That's a harshly critical and highly partisan opinion piece mocking a Conservative politician which was published in a newspaper well-known for favouring the Labour Party for many decades. In my opinion, it is most definitely not a high-quality source for a negative characterization in a BLP.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So now you want to set goalposts that write off the Mirror, a national newspaper. Its a source "specifically accusing Dorries of "nepotism"" as asked for. There are innerable other ones - which you would also of course dismiss.

The Mirror being a Labour favouring newpaper is irrelevant. This Tory blogger puts the story under "snouts in the trough" http://order-order.com/2013/09/12/taxpayer-pays-dorries-girls-145000/ And that Telegraph link I posted doesn't exactly approve of nepotism.

---The heading should be reinstated to something like the heading here "Accusations of nepotism" with the link to that article. That doesn't take a position either way.---

As it is, as I said in the article history, the change made removes any sense that her employing her daughters is controversial. The fact that she employed her relatives is of no note except for the fact that it is (or to be ridiculously kind - might be) nepotism. The refusal to allow the English word for it is frankly bizarre. As bizarre as claiming that other people didn't get the job because nobody else wanted it. Even though MPs manage to find unpaid interns, let alone employees on nearly double the rate for the job.

Dorries didn't sue the Mirror over that nepotism claim, or all the other places - because a lawsuit would have been laughed out.


 * "Allegations" of nepotism works for me, assuming that some sources can be found that make the allegations themselves notable. But WP:WEASEL must be avoided. Incidentally, Ms Dorries is reported to maintain the services of Messrs Carter Ruck as has been noted in one of her local newspapers, although to my knowledge she has never actually taken anyone to court. But being on the wrong side of a libel action is not a nice thing. Shritwod (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been discussing this on Mark Arsten's talk page as he is the one who locked the site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Nadine_Dorries_and_accusations_of_nepotism

Here are some sources I already posted there. These mention Dorries specifically:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10307458/MPs-expenses-How-MPs-could-avoid-the-trouble-and-strife.html http://www.ukwirednews.com/news.php/4154-MPs-second-mortgages-and-nepotism-banned http://order-order.com/2010/08/25/keeping-it-in-the-family/

This is about her: about 9 of the comments on the first page use the word "nepotism". http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/19/nadine-dorries-pays-student-daughter-philippa-39k-_n_1609139.html

These don't single out Nadine Dorries - there are 200 MP's involved so they're not going to mention each one. But as someone who employs her daughters and who is an MP they clearly refer to her.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6435511/MPs-expenses-let-them-pay-for-nepotism-themselves.html http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/06/in-praise-of-nepotism.html http://blogs.birminghampost.co.uk/news/2009/08/a-little-nepotism-is-a-good-th.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/mps-claim-more-now-than-they-did-before-the-expenses-scandal-8814520.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mp-has-three-family-members-on-his-staff-list-2063316.html http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/iain-macwhirter/goodbye-nepotism-and-tax-evasion-how-will-our-poor-mps-manage-1.929659 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.31.212 (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've had enough so won't be making any more comments. I've been doing a lot of work, and the only one doing any to provide evidence people have asked for but nothing will ever be enough. Nepotism is a taboo word for this article even though it is the word the English language has for employing your relatives in public service. Fine. Gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.31.212 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Zeng Guo Yuan
This article is undergoing a GA review and its BLP compliance is in doubt. Editors familiar with the BLP policy, please provide constructive input at the review page. Thank you. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Reich
On the talk page of Alexis Reich's article there is a proposal to rename this trans woman's biography back to her former name prior to her transitioning gender identity. In the trans community it is well known that misnaming is deliberately used to humiliate trans people. This is especially common to disrespect trans women by repeatedly calling her by male pronouns and using her old male name. The article already addresses her gender identity transition so the effort has been to change the title of the article back to her pre-transition name. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed the move discussion as clearly disruptive. Sceptre (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has been re-opened. This is clearly battlegrounding from the Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning debate. __Elaqueate (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I could add that a main contention of the battlegrounding is founded specifically on the idea that [BLP] is not a valid policy or that it should be given little notice in forming decisions. This is in addition to the weakening of displayed concern for minority editors and subjects. It feels likes it's gone from a policy discussion to an active and hostile campaign against respecting the consensus around the policy. __Elaqueate (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you read the rules about WP:CANVASS - this board has now been informed, and further discussion should continue at the article talk page. I have no idea where you get the inference that BLP is not a valid policy, there is no such statement or assertion, so the only battleground behavior here is yours, by making this reasonable, policy-based page move out to be an all-out assault on BLP! Put down the sword and join the discussion... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have discussed things with you in the past and you have become uncivil too often for me to want to do it again. You have sworn at me, you have been directly uncivil to editors, and specifically insensitive to trans editors, and you have ignored my requests for sources for your claims and bullied myself and others when challenged. I don't feel you are helping this project by working your way through articles of some of the most vulnerable living people covered here to exhibit your opinions about policy. My thoughts on this latest move to extend the Bradley Manning controversy to more transgender subjects were dismissed as a personal attack. I have only assumed good faith from you up till now. Thank you for your offer to discuss but I will decline. __Elaqueate (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly feels like this is one big exercise to make a point. I think the more people looking at this move request the better off we'll be. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like the whole discussion is to make a point that BLP isn't enough to respect a trans woman's wishes - ergo the Manning article again. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just opened an ANI thread about this incident. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Gary Null is not a Quack or a crackpot
Maybe he's not the sharpest tool in the shed on AIDS, I don't know everything about him. But what I do know is this: He's a nutritionist, not a superhuman perfect dude. And he is personally wealthy because for 40 years now he's operated organic farms and made supplements and written books that people want. He's being badly savaged by what is on the Wikipedia page on him.

It's basically a retread of what is on the Quackwatch page. It doesn't mention Shelley Null. It doesn't talk about any of his latest books, or that he is largely making movies for social acivism now. It doesn't say that he immediately pulled the bad supplement off the market and sued the supplier, it makes it sound like somebody's gloating over a mistake he made. The wording of the Vitamin D incident sounds like somebody is enjoying the fact that he got hurt and ignoring the fact that he did all the right things as a person who sells supplements. That's amazing to me. There aren't any lists of his books, or dvds...

I tried to just move the criticism stuff to one section, but really I'd have to move almost all of it to the criticism section because you've just got scandals in there. You think in 40 years of being a public figure somebody could live a life without scandals? I think not. Esp not a guy who is constantly in the limelight on the radio, making products, selling things, being an alternative kinda guy. I mean, he's one of the original boomers who started the alternative health revolution. He's been living healthy longer than I've been alive. After reading what you have here on him, I'm just stunned, it's like you've sold out to the Quackwatch people, who are no saints, I'll tell you. I added some things I thought were relevant, but I can only start the process of adding the positive things that are completely ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.67.129 (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * IMHO, the article Gary Null is actually surprisingly kind to him. You need to read WP:FRINGE and WP:RGW.  From what I can see, Mr Null is what would commonly be termed a "crackpot" or a "quack" by medical scientists. You might want to read the articles on quack and crackpot as well.  The question as to whether Mr Null has honest intentions or not is largely irrelevant when he is promoting "medicine not based on evidence" to people while disparaging evidence-based medicine.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there something I'm missing here? He's an alt med, aids denialist, anti-vaxxer, megavitamin proponent and anti-evidence based medicine. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I made it clear that he is none of the things you say, but if the editors of Wikipedia feel this way about him, I'm talking to a wall. I can see that my edits, which were simply to create a Criticism section, and move the worst of the criticism there (a courtesy you extended to the Quackwatch article, but obviously people for whom you have biased opinions aren't included in any courtesies), the addition of a couple of simple lists of his publications, and a beginning on what he has been doing lately, social activism, which I could only find two links quickly one against building Nuclear Power plants (Greenpeace is against this too, are they crackpots?), and one against GMO's where he presents scientific evidence against their use. I know that evidence exists, I researched that myself in an unrelated project. Do you buy genetically modified food? And if you do, are you comfortable with it? If so, fine. But I can assure you that not all farmers are comfortable with it, and neither is everyone, and that's because of some scientific evidence and the behavior of corporations (corporate bullying). That doesn't sound like being against evidence based science. That sounds like somebody with real ethics. Maybe you don't have time to find out the facts on him so it's more comfortable for you to demonize him. I don't agree with everything he says. I think the risk-benefit ratio of vaccines is good enough to warrant their use on a mass scale but your polarized article focuses only on his most fringe qualities and doesn't discuss the more boring vaccine issue, doesn't discuss his organic gardening, his exercise videos, his juice books, his health guides (which he's been selling for 40 years). People wouldn't buy them if they were no good at all. You're missing a lot about him.

Since it's obviously futile for me to edit the article (you'll just revert it like you did before), I'll let you do the research and all the work yourself. Go to youtube and educate yourself on what he's really like, then go to amazon and look up his latest books, then to his website and find his DVDs... etc. hey, I could've done it for you. But I guess bias is bias. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A stopped clock is right twice a day. He may have used evidence-based science for his opinions on nuclear power and GMOs &mdash; I haven't checked the references.  He has not used evidence-based science for his opinions on AIDS, vaccination, and megavitamins.  (In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not completely convinced that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, because of the number of people with HIV but no other symptoms of AIDS, and the number of people with AIDS where HIV has not been detected.  That doesn't mean that I agree with Gary's analysis of the subject.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "A is the sole source of B" means that if there is B, there is also A. It does not mean that if there is A, there is also B; that implication is in the wrong direction.  "I'm not convinced that HIV is the cause because people have HIV but no other symptoms" is of the second form, and logically invalid. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * IP, ultimately articles in Wikipedia must reflect what others say about him in reliable sources in relative weight based on the predominance of those views. You mention some possible information to add, that's possible but you've got to have independent secondary sources that discuss things. And before you ask, court records do NOT count.  Consider using the articles talk page to discuss possible changes and especially your sources.  Please remember that blogs and self-published advocacy websites just about always fail the reliable source requirement. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah Great, so not only is he an aids denialist, anti-vaxxer, etc he's also in the Anti-GMO (I suggest you check the opinions of scientists in this area, and every food safety authority) and Anti-Nuclear brigade. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't know anything about the AIDS issue until I read it here, and I don't know what he said or how he said it. I also have not done any research about that, but I can understand that people would be upset about the issue. My concern is the omission of facts, and the mischaracterisation of somebody who isn't a fringe character even if he does occasionally say things that are unpopular. I believe that's called non-conformity and was something highly prized when teachers wanted students to not drive drunk, but is something less than glamorous now that we're all "adults" supposedly. Maybe his thoughts just don't fit into soundbites. I think that he's wrong twice a day, and the rest of the time, he's right, using your analogy of the clock.

As for using the talk page, my edit to that was deleted too. I wasn't going to reply anymore here, but I talked myself into it because you suggested using the talk page. Well, boy howdy do I feel empowered now! You've got some excellent watchdogs, I'll give you that. I think they've got rabies. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If someone is widely viewed as outside the mainstream, or as a crank or quack, then our neutrality policy demands that we convey their reception honestly to the reader rather than hiding it. While non-conformity is an admirable quality in many ways, it tends to be counterproductive when it leads to encouraging people with HIV to go off their anti-retroviral medication. In any case, you're welcome to your views, but you're not welcome to enshrine them on Wikipedia in place of actual reliable third-party sources. Your contribution to Talk:Gary Null violated this site's policy on material about living people; that's why it was removed. MastCell Talk 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute...
 * 1) I didn't remove any information from the article, I just moved the worst of the criticism to a Criticism section, which I created. Quackwatch, which I believe is probably the author of the article because the article reads almost word for word like the Quackwatch article, disputes even the most basic facts about Gary Null's life, such as his Nutritionist certification in the State of New York.  Actually they don't dispute it, but they cast doubt on it, which is a common tool of slander, and I believe it may be libelous, since somebody already has used the word.
 * 2) I added two things to the introductory paragraph, a reference to the Nutrition certification, and a sentence characterizing him as an organic farmer as well as other health concerns.
 * 3) I added the names of his most recent books which I took straight off of Amazon.com's author page, listed by Publication date.
 * 4) I added what I could guess were some of his recent DVDs, which were harder to figure out by publication date.
 * 5) I added one trailer and one full movie link regarding his social activism which is more recent.  One regarding GMO's and one about Nuclear Power Plants.

Can you tell me what part of any of that either violated your policy, or was an attempt to "enshrine" my views on Wikipedia? Because I don't see it. I thought I was trying to help you to live up to your promise of being a neutral source of information. The mainstream view of Gary Null is not that he is a "crank" or any of the words that you or your other editors have used to describe him. I believe that if you took the article as it is right now, and tried to publish it in the New York Times, it would fail neutrality and would possibly open the newspaper up to libel. I believe it would be seriously rewritten if it were published in a real newspaper. I honestly was trying to help, but you don't see that, and it's unfortunate. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is very poorly written and lacks neutrality, balance and cohesion. This is often the result when a BLP becomes a war zone. So far it appears that those who wish to discredit the subject are succeeding.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 18:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be more helpful if you could articulate some of the specific areas of the article that trouble you. Otherwise, how are we supposed to respond, other that acknowledging that you don't like the article? Personally, I don't see a BLP issue here - this is what a well-sourced, neutral article looks like when we cover someone whose views are regarded as misguided by independent, reliable sources. I don't see any unsourced or improperly sourced criticism. In-text attribution is used appropriately. Null does advocate alternative remedies by alleging a massive conspiracy to suppress them. He does claim that HIV is harmless, and was discussed in that context by Seth Kalichmann, probably the leading scholar of the AIDS "dissident" movement. His credentials really have been questioned. His views really are regarded as out-there by any independent, reliable source which has bothered to comment on them. Help me figure out how to convey all of that honestly to the reader with "neutrality, balance, and cohesion". MastCell Talk 23:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've restricted myself to copy-editing for prose style, overlinks and, in one case supplied a url for a cited article. But one substantive change that would start to address the WP:WEIGHT issues associated with the fact that this is a biography of a living person would be to trim back the Ultimate Power Meal stuff in the lede and leave the story-telling to the subhed, where it belongs.  Repeating the Quackwatch link twice, once in the inline refs and the second time in the external links, violating WP:ELRC was so obvious, I just went ahead and deleted the EL.  It's hard to imagine even the most extreme view of WP:FRINGE sanctioning that bit of nonsense. But telling the Power Meal story twice in one BLP, in detail both times, is just as bad. How come that doesn't leap out at anyone else? David in DC (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Its POV pushing and it should be removed from the lead. There's also some soapboxing going on in the Power Meal section and it needs to be cut in half IMO. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I can see your point about the length of the Power Meal section (although it's actually the best-sourced part of the entire article). But could you elaborate on what you mean by "soapboxing"? Thanks. MastCell Talk 21:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review the Null talk page. I spent a bunch of time editing Null today and then Wolfie spent a bunch of time correcting my edits. I've put each correction diff on the talk page and responded to each. About half are on matters of style and usage, rather than genuine content disputes. Between the diffs and my responses, and Wolfie's admirably clear (if frightening) statement below that "I don't see any conflict between WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE", I think the issues here are very well framed. David in DC (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would like to address my comment rather than simply dismissing it? Where is the discrepancy between WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you've missed the fact that I already have. In answer to a dismissive question from you coupled with a misrepresentation of my original concern, in fact. (I'm pretty sure the degree of difficulty on that combo earns you extra points beyong beyond those you'd earn if performing these tricks seperately) To wit:


 * Have you read the fringe guidelines? [That's the dismissive question, for those of you scoring at home] Your sole complaint appears to be that there was an external link? [That's the misrepresentation.] IRWolfie- (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, my complaint is that WP:BLP applies, too. Fringe theories leave more room for weighting mainstream views heavily. There's no competing policy/guideline. But biographies of living people are special. So what's fine on a page about fringe theories is not necessarily fine on a page about living fringe theorists. Sometimes we need to exercise editorial judgment when faced with countervailing imperitives.
 * David in DC (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion on the Gary Null talkpage
Please review the talk page thread I've started here and the article in question. This is the second living fringe science figure whose bio I've reviewed recently. If the two are representative, I see a problem bigger than just the two articles. David in DC (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read the fringe guidelines? Your sole complaint appears to be that there was an external link? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, my complaint is that WP:BLP applies, too. Fringe theories leave more room for weighting mainstream views heavily. There's no competing policy/guideline. But biographies of living people are special. So what's fine on a page about fringe theories is not necessarily fine on a page about living fringe theorists. Sometimes we need to exercise editorial judgment when faced with countervailing imperitives.


 * I have no doubt that we disagree on this. But please understand that I do not come at this as a proponent of fringe theories. I come at it mindful of the great damage we once did to John Siegenthaler and many, many less prominent living people, and with as strong a certainty about the importance of WP:BLP as you appear to have about the importance of WP:FRINGE.


 * Let's try to deal with our disagreement in a way that sheds more light than heat. "Have you read the fringe guidelines?" Yes. But the question suggests an unwarranted suspension of the assumption of good faith. I'm starting from the assumption that you have read WP:BLP. And if my sole complaint appeared to you to be that there was an external link, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to spell it out for you and for anyone else who might have misapprehended my complaint. David in DC (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see any conflict between WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE. The issue with the Seigenthaler case was one of unsourced content. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * David, I too wonder what's the problem. What part of BLP is violated? Negative content, if properly sourced, is allowed by BLP and required by NPOV. Is the very fact that negative content exists a problem for you? That is often a complaint we hear from newbies, but not from experienced editors like yourself. Is it a problem of weight and/or sourcing? Someone as controversial and extremely fringe as Null can't avoid mainstream criticism, which gets more weight here. Since fringe matters are primarily dealt with by scientific skeptics (they are very mainstream), that's where we will find most of our sourcing for such matters. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In my view, the problem is one of weight. When writing about a living fringe theorist, the boundaries are different than when writing about fringe theories. Well-sourced derogatory information is permissible in BLP's, but what's permissible speaks only to the first question an editor must answer when introducing negative information into a BLP. The next question is "is it necessary?" At some point, and in my view the Null article as I first found it had reached and exceeded that point, the "piling on" of sourced derogatory information turns a BLP into an WP:ATTACK piece. The editorial judgment required in BLP's is rarely an on/off, black/white, binary toggle switch. The effort to keep our project from becoming fringopedia is important. I'm not a proponent of fringe science, medicine or tiddlywinks, for that matter. But the danger of it doing real harm, in the real world, is far greater if we're not hypervigilant about it not becoming attackopedia. David in DC (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well put. As long as this doesn't turn into some form of whitewashing, editorial judgment can be used to modify how information is presented, but it should still be there. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've offered a slightly different way of characterizing Quackwatch and the article about Null there than the way it reads currently. My version has been characterized on the talk page as minimizing the importance of the article and marginalizing its author, with a suggestion that BLP is implicated with respect to that author. I'd welcome a reality-check about that on the talk page, whichever way the reality check goes. David in DC (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The question of real-life harm is a complex one, but since David mentioned it, I have a very different view on the subject. I don't see that our article does any real-life harm by recapitulating a series of well-documented unflattering aspects of Null's career. We're not making anything up; all of this stuff actually happened, all of it is well-sourced, and the question is just how many words to spend on it. On the other hand, if even one person with HIV/AIDS decides to stop their antiretrovirals because we've failed to make clear that Null's ideas on AIDS are widely and completely rejected, then we're complicit in serious real-life harm. The issue cuts both ways, and in my mind actually argues in favor of a clear, direct, and honest presentation of the fact that Null's health claims are widely regarded as irresponsible quackery. MastCell Talk 04:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * When all is said and done, the article is no less clear, direct or honest about the widely held judgment that Null's health claims are quackery now than it was two or three weeks ago. And its been divested of some overkill.
 * I proceed with some trepidation now. MastCell has, in all our interactions, been for me an exemplar of all that is best in a wikipedia editor. Nonetheless, the danger of this wikipedia BLP of Gary Null dissuading even one person from continuing retroviral therapy to combat HIV/AIDS seems to me a straw man. A) The biography, as noted above, is still crystal clear as to Nullquackery. B) The scenario in which a person living with HIV/AIDS consults wikipedia to decide about discontinuing retroviral therapy and makes a Gary Null biography which catalogs his failings the deciding factor in favor of that discontinuance strains credulity beyond its breaking point. C) The scenario that posits wikipedia as the place someone would go to inform their final decision on such a matter is scarcely less fantistic. But if it's within the realm of possibility, at all, surely this hypothetical decision-maker would consult more than just Gary Null's biography.
 * Once the straw man is disposed of, we're back to the difference between how we treat fringe theory and how we treat living fringe theorists. On that score, I see an improved article today. Absent wholesale reversions of our recent progress, I think there's not much more to talk about here. We'll always have the talk page. David in DC (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "The scenario that posits wikipedia as the place someone would go to inform their final decision on such a matter is scarcely less fantistic. " . Even doctors use wikipedia:, and is frequently used for people looking for health information: . IRWolfie- (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * David, I appreciate the kind words. There's no need for trepidation - we can disagree here and remain friendly and respectful. I do think the role of Wikipedia is more prominent as a source of health information than you give it credit for. That's based on my personal observation (in which patients often rely substantively on Wikipedia to vet their health-care decisions), but also on the published literature - see, for example, and . On that basis, I think the impact of Wikipedia on people's health-care decision is probably more substantial that we generally appreciate, and it warrants at least as much consideration as the real-life harm associated with repeating well-documented concerns about Null in our BLP. MastCell Talk 22:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Gary Null is a fringe theorist, and I think he'd be the first to admit that his ideas are not in the mainstream. FWIW, I have met Null while racewalking. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the point as I understand it, is that identifying someone as a "fringe theorist" does not give us permission to name call or to create articles that somehow dispense with the controls that we have designated for BLPs in general. I sometimes get the sense the so called fringe theorists are less worthy of the kind of decent  treatment we should extend to any human being. And I'd add today's fringe theorist may be tomorrow's Einstein or Galileo.(olive (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Fortunately, the article does not "name-call", nor dispense with BLP controls, nor treat Null any less "decently" than any other subject of an encyclopedic biography. Everything negative in the article is properly sourced. The Galileo gambit is almost too silly to warrant a response. I will say that Wikipedia treats fringe theorists as fringe theorists, not as potential Einsteins. If Null someday proves right&mdash;if HIV proves to be a harmless virus and AIDS simply the product of a pharmaceutical-industry conspiracy&mdash;then I'll be the first to adjust our articles accordingly. But let's hold off on comparing him to Galileo and Einstein until that day, alright? MastCell Talk 22:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was responding to a general idea that has been brought up here, that we treat fringe theorist articles as we would any BLP, and it was a good faith comment to another editor. Nor did I compare Null to any one. I'm sorry you felt you had to treat my statement with sarcasm. (olive (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * No one has suggested that we should treat fringe theorists any differently than any other BLP, so I think we're unanimous there. I think the comparison of Null (as a fringe theorist) to Galileo/Einstein was obvious in your previous post, but won't argue the point any further. MastCell Talk 06:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Jake Zamansky
This article is clearly a promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity and the topic is unsuitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrisVerde (talk • contribs) 14:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the alert. I've cut it way back. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Million Muslim March and BLPs
A new editor is adding material about this squib of a demonstration to various BLPs, eg Merlin Miller, Cornel West, Webster Tarpley and Kevin Barrett, as well as add their names to Islam in the United States. Some of this has now been reverted but this seems to have been almost a non-event, the Daily Caller is being used as a source (I believe we agreed it shouldn't be used for BLPs, and for at least Miller virtually none of the sources used mentioned him. Some of the references were written to appear as though Miller was there, eg " " but I'm struggling to find sources that make this important for his BLP. As I said, this is a new user with a lack of understanding of WP:RS and the use of copyvio links. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mis-using references, especially on BLPs, to promote some kind of POV/agenda is nothing but disruptive. GiantSnowman 13:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati
Someone else want to explain to the father of the subject that declining to add puffery to the article is not "degrading the article of the subject again and again". -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  11:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this back on? Sigh. Seriously, never mind WP:COI, no one associated with the subject should be editing that article. Ever. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The father has joined the son by declaring he will "...never LOG IN to Wikipedia nor the subject will ever LOG IN to Wikipedia." (the two have eerily similar patterns of writing) and I've archived the mess of a talk page. Hopefully that will be that but Abecedare did some good verification work and added some qualifiers to the article so we shall see. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  04:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Oceana (born 1982)
The title and bio show a 1982 birth date for this person, while the category stub at the bottom shows (births in 1984). Seems like poor editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.88.84 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since all of the birth date information is unsourced, or at least any sources in the article that might support it haven't been cited inline, I have removed all of it from the lead, the article body, the infobox, the categories and the Persondata template for now. If someone finds a source somewhere that supports a birth date and cites it, it can be restored. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was referenced in German wikipedia - though this reference only has the year. StAnselm (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Chris Laidlaw edits


The article on Chris Laidlaw was recently edited by. Despite some apparent sources being used, a lot of it reads as personal opinion or commentary that may be being extrapolated from more neutral statements depending on the bias of this user. A look at his other contributions reveal statements of very strong POVs on some issues he edits on. Other opinions would be welcome, this covers just not the subject of the article, but also several others that are mentioned, and some rugby teams. Benea (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to head out for about an hour but I did an immediate revert of the IP's edits as there was a host of problems you identified. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  03:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is some serious OR and POV, but it looks like it's already been reversed. Thanks for reporting it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

People (magazine)/People.com at Brad Pitt article or other WP:BLPs
Like I stated at the Brad Pitt talk page: In this edit, John removed People sources and replaced them with WP:Citation needed tags in some cases, citing WP:BLPSOURCES. I have to point out that People is generally not considered tabloid journalism, at least not by Wikipedia, which is why the Brad Pitt article was elevated to WP:Featured article (FA) status with People sources. People has been taken to this noticeboard more than once, and is generally accepted as a reliable source for biographies of living persons (especially when it comes to sourcing itself with regard to a person having given an interview to the publication). Instead of reverting John, because I'd rather not get into a WP:Edit war and because I figured that someone else would likely revert him, I decided to bring the matter to the Brad Pitt talk page; this discussion, if I had reverted John, was likely inevitable.

John's response was the following: "It's a gossip rag and is not a reliable source." I asked at that talk page if anyone else was interested in weighing in on this matter before I brought it here; no one else has weighed in there thus far. Though many experienced Wikipedia editors, including me at times, do not give the WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS argument much credit or mock it, it is a valid argument in this case. Using People as a source in BLPs, as long as it is used appropriately, is standard practice. I know this from having seen it used in many WP:BLPs, including WP:Good articles (GA) and WP:Featured articles (where the sources are usually extensively analyzed during the nomination process, especially with regard to WP:Featured articles), without any problems. And now John removes it extensively from this featured article. He even removed it from an instance where the text was referring to Pitt giving an interview to People, which I find odd. I wouldn't put People in the same category as the National Enquirer or the Daily Mail at all, especially not the former.

So, yes, thoughts on this matter from this noticeboard are needed. I will also alert WP:FILM to this discussion, considering that they deal with BLP issues with regard to actors often. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, that People magazine is generally considered a reliable source for biographical information about celebrities. As a Time Inc. publication, they have a reputation for professional editorial control and fact checking. Personally, I dislike their editorial emphasis, but there is a big market for celebrity news. And many top-tier celebrities trust People with exclusives because they know that magazine is not prone to publishing fabrications and unverified gossip. All sources must be used with caution, but I think this source is useful and generally reliable for entertainment celebrity biographies.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  05:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Cullen's assessment is spot on. People is generally a reliable source for celebrities' lives. Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, John has very recently removed more sources, this time mostly the Daily News (New York), which is also usually a WP:Reliable source for celebrity information and information in general. Just because a source states "gossip" does not make it unreliable. At this point, I feel that John is wrecking the article and I don't know what to do about that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not on my watch, sorry. This is a celebrity gossip rag, not a reliable source. Check out their disclaimer: " THE WEB SITE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL SERVICES, CONTENT, FUNCTIONS AND MATERIALS PROVIDED THROUGH THE WEB SITE, ARE PROVIDED "AS IS," "AS AVAILABLE," WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY FOR INFORMATION, DATA, DATA PROCESSING SERVICES, UPTIME OR UNINTERRUPTED ACCESS, ANY WARRANTIES CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY, PLAYABILITY, DISPLAYABILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, CORRECTNESS, THOROUGHNESS, COMPLETENESS, USEFULNESS, OR CONTENT OF INFORMATION, AND ANY WARRANTIES OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND WE HEREBY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL SUCH WARRANTIES, EXPRESS AND IMPLIED." I also removed material from the New York Daily News, The Sun and the Daily Mail. Does User:Flyer22 think that these too are appropriate sources for an article on a living person? WP:BLPSOURCES says This is a tabloid, ergo it is not suitable as a a source here. This is not, as they say, rocket science. --John (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * John, you are in the wrong, as two other editors have stated thus far. You were also in the wrong at the Ben Affleck article, as seen here and here, and no telling at how many others. That is another WP:Good article, and, to put it simply, you are wrecking articles. That you do not understand what are acceptable sources to use and what are truly unreliable celebrity "gossip rags" is deeply troubling. Stating "Not on my watch" does not make you any more right; nor will it ensure that you will get your way on this. If WP:Consensus is against you in this section, I will restore the valid content at the Brad Pitt article, the Ben Affleck article and any other article I come across where you have inappropriately removed sources. Actually listen to what others are stating to you on this matter, and start analyzing the sources better. A source being a source that mostly or only focuses on celebrity content does not make that source unreliable for biographical information. You are even removing legitimate newspaper sources, such as the New York Daily News. Hello, another source you removed from the Ben Affleck article, is another legitimate source for biographical content. As shown above, I obviously do not think that sources such as the Daily Mail and The Sun are appropriate sources to use for biographical content...while believing that the New York Daily News is appropriate for biographical content. You want to remove the Daily Mail, as you did here at a different article? Fine. The valid sources? No, not fine. Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with you Flyer. If John is wrecking articles, then haul him to AN/I, and you better look at my recent contributions because I'm 'wrecking' loads right now. One "Good Article" I came across recently, had the Mail, Sun, Star, Express, and NOTW as sources - some in violation of BLPCRIME. It's not the only Good Article either by any stretch.
 * So the fact that an article has a star or badge or whatever is often meaningless. If a BLP is to be awarded FA status, I would expect the sourcing to be impeccable. Where there are multiple sources for information I would expect the best to be chosen, and if the People is the only source for something, I wouldn't want it in the article. If there's any doubt over the quality of a source, caution should be excised, especially in a BLP. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 06:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources you named are generally unreliable for biographical content and often in general (though I don't know what "NOTW" stands for and whether or not that source is unreliable). People, as noted above, is generally not unreliable for biographical content (especially for sourcing text pertaining to an interview that person did with the publication). Neither is the the New York Daily News or Hello. In some cases, John seems to be removing sources simply because they mostly or only focus on celebrity content; that does not make a source unreliable. And People or other such sources being used does not mean that there are not higher quality sources covering the same information. But even if there are, it does not mean that the existing sources should be stripped away from the article and replaced with WP:Citation needed tags or left with no citation at all. So, yes, I respectfully disagree, and do consider John to be wrecking articles when acting in this way...whether the articles are WP:Good articles, WP:Featured articles, or have no special badge. And, again, WP:Featured articles go through a rigorous process of making sure that the sources are valid. People has passed as a valid source in many WP:Featured article processes for living people. And John gets to come in and say, "Not on my watch! I disagree with the community."? Give me a break. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, just because its used in FAs doesn't make it an acceptable source.
 * Just look at the People website. Maybe they (and Time Inc.) had some credibility in the past. I don't think they do anymore. Similarly the NY Daily News has seen better days:
 * In January 2012, former News of the World and New York Post editor Colin Myler was appointed editor-in-chief of the Daily News.
 * As for Hello....Hello? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 07:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not state "just because its used in FAs [makes it an acceptable source]." I stated, "WP:Featured articles go through a rigorous process of making sure that the sources are valid. People has passed as a valid source in many WP:Featured article processes for living people." That means that several or many editors thoroughly examined the sources; it was left in the article during the FA process because the community agreed that the source is acceptable. That is a completely different matter than a source that was added after the FA process. And again, People generally passes as an acceptable source for biographical content. John does not get to come in and start wiping it from articles because the source is not good enough to him. Neither does anyone else. Indeed, he will have many articles to go to purge them of that source, and will get much resistance along the way because there is nothing forbidding the use of that source in policies or guidelines. Personal opinions about that source or any source should not matter on Wikipedia. Our policies and guidelines are what should. Flyer22 (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And policy states tabloids are unacceptable. Common sense/editorial judgement should come into play but based on what I've seen around WP, this is in rather short supply. You may not want to label it a tabloid, but the disclaimer John provides makes it quite clear that the People cannot be described as a reliable source.
 * The fact that BLPs get declared "GAs" or "FAs" with poor sourcing, points to flaws in the process. For example, perhaps editors are concerned with a sentence being cited for the purposes of fulfilling the review criteria, less so with the actual quality of said source. Other subjects on WP typically get reviewed by experts in the field, or by people who at least have some knowledge or have read books on the matter. The same doesn't apply with BLPs, where often comprehensive overviews and biographies don't exist, nor experts in the field. Your argument amounts to OTHERSHITEXISTS. Try searching dailymail.co.uk in WP. Over 10,000 examples, many in BLPs. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 07:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And People is not tabloid journalism, as the Wikipedia article on it makes clear with a WP:Reliable source, and as I and other editors in this section have stated. It's not about what I want to label a tabloid, but clearly about what you and John want to label a tabloid. Well, tabloid journalism is not generally considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Such sources do not consistently pass the WP:GA and WP:FA processes, especially the WP:FA process, with regard to WP:BLP articles. That, Hillbillyholiday81, is common sense. There is no flaw in the process that People is routinely accepted. Nor is it poor sourcing. An editor's personal-opinion-type-of-editorial judgment on this should not factor in at all. Neither you nor John will stop the widespread use and acceptance of People on Wikipedia, and you certainly won't stop newspapers such as the New York Daily News from being used simply because you think it "has seen better days." As for "who are these people that 'peer review' our BLPs?"... Wikipedia editors, of course, mostly experienced ones. Maybe you should try experiencing a WP:FA process to know exactly what it entails. Or try getting an article to WP:GA or WP:FA status, and then you will know or appreciate the hard work, including accuracy, that is involved in those processes. I've seen People analyzed countless times in such review processes, by editors as strict as they come, and they judged the source as valid/reliable time and time again. And continue to do so for other articles. Even now at this noticeboard with editors, such as Cullen328 and Binksternet, who are strict on WP:BLP issues, it is accepted. As for WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS, I beat you to the punch on that up above. And as that essay states, WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS can be a valid argument. Two other editors thus far have agreed with me, in this case, that it is. And that disclaimer John provided makes nothing clear to me about People not being a WP:Reliable source. And your search shows nothing with regard to whether or not those articles are WP:GAs or WP:FAs and whether or not those sources were accepted during those processes. This discussion with you is also making this section WP:Too long, didn't read; the last thing I need is editors deterred from weighing in on this because of the length. Flyer22 (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have got an article to GA status and it passed without trouble. Sure, I could spend more time reviewing articles for GA/FA, but I'm more concerned with flushing turds, not polishing them. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 08:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that you and John are doing what you perceive to be polishing. But at least it seems that you (not John) are only removing sources that actually should be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not addressing the particular source or fact under dispute here, but a note about disclaimers in general. I'll just copy over what I wrote a couple of years ago at RSN.
 * ...it's inappropriate to read a perception of unreliability into the presence of legal boilerplate. This sort of standard disclaimer is common and entirely unremarkable.  For example, the New York Times offers, in part, the following disclaimer:
 * THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY CONTAIN INACCURACIES AND TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY MAKES NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY FACTS, ADVICE, OPINIONS, VIEWS, STATEMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION DISPLAYED ON OR DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE WEB SITE.
 * (In all, it runs to four paragraphs of ALL CAPS SCREAMING LEGALESE explaining why we can't hold them responsible for errors or omissions.) You'll find similar terms on the web sites of many of our generally-considered-reliable sources.
 * In other words, the disclaimer=unreliable link is entirely a red herring. If anything, the presence of boilerplate disclaimers may be a tenuously positive indicator, as it suggests the source is at least competent enough to get good legal advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * One more in support of keeping the sources. Though they may not be suitable for sole sources about highly controversial information about living people, for more innocuous information People and the Daily News will do.
 * Oh, and check out the very similar disclaimer on this web site. "This Service is available “as is.” We do not warrant that this Service will be uninterrupted or error-free. There may be delays, omissions, interruptions and inaccuracies in the news, information or other materials available through this Service. We are not responsible in any way for third-party products or services that may be linked to this Service (including without limitation for the availability or content of those services, or for any products purchased on those services), nor for any products or services that may be advertised by third parties on this Service. We do not make any warranties, express or implied, including without limitation, those of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, with respect to this Service or any information or goods that are available or advertised or sold through this Service. We do not make any representations, nor do we endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other material or database displayed, uploaded or distributed in this Service or available through links in this Service." Another "not on your watch tabloid"? That's the Washington Post. --GRuban (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with others People is reliable for this sort of basic biographical information associated with the source in the diff Flyer provided--where he was born, went to school, who he studied with, his comments on the roles he had. I'd even think it's reliable for the personal events sourced, such as marriages and children.  I took a look at a few previous WP:RSN discussions regarding People and there looked to be general agreement that People is reliable for these sorts of statements. I can't agree with the removal that was done.   13:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Going over the sources removed from Brad Pitt, it appears that Pitt and Aniston used the People to announce the news of their split (confirmed elsewhere), and this piece looks well researched with six authors. On reflection, it seems reasonable to use them for non-contentious info. Mind you, it is hard to take the People seriously with headlines like this: Brad Pitt Gets a Haircut for New Film
 * A problem with these sort of 'high-end' celebrity-focused publications is that (similar to many official biographies), the top celebrities get paid large sums money for these type of interviews and exclusives (the People reportedly paid $4 million to 'Brangelina' for baby pics), and with neither party wishing to seriously rock the boat, the pieces often appear to be no more than PR bumf. Another problem with celebrity-driven publications in general, is that the relentless pursuit of the latest gossip leads many editors to feel they can add every last trivial detail to BLPs. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 16:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, largely agree. We need to keep in mind there are two separate things here:  First is whether People can be relied on as a source of fact-checked information; second is whether the editorial focus of People is the same as Wikipedia's.  I think the answer to the first question is Yes, and the second is No.  I do not doubt that Brad got that haircut, but that fact--even if true and well-sourced--should not end up in our BLP on him.   16:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Zad, regarding having checked the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard for such discussions, I may have been confusing this noticeboard with the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, considering that I've seen People consistently validated as a reliable source there as well. I've contacted WP:BIOGRAPHY to weigh in on this discussion for greater input. No other member of WP:FILM, except for me, has weighed in on it yet, and maybe one or more people from WP:BIOGRAPHY will.


 * Hillbillyholiday, thank you for researching this matter further to get a more well-rounded outlook on the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Both WP:ABOUTSELF and possibly even WP:NEWSBLOG allow for interviews in People to be used as reliable source about the interviewee for non-expectational claims. If Facebook can be used for such claims under WP:ABOUTSELF, why can't People? D kriegls ( talk to me! ) 17:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ABOUTSELF can only be used to support material about the People, not about third parties like Brad Pitt. WP:BLP trumps WP:V (of which ABOUTSELF is a section). --John (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are still the valid arguments others have made against you above. WP:Consensus is against you, but you continue to ignore those arguments and insist that your argument is the one that's right. One can obviously stand by their convictions, but you don't seem to give the other arguments any true consideration. No matter, because I will be following the WP:Consensus when I eventually revert you. And if this has to go to WP:ANI, then so be it. I'm tired of your obvious power trip. Flyer22 (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick look at the material which is supported by People magazine at the Brad Pitt biography, I see nothing extraordinary about the text. Pitt is the son of some people, he went to a school and played sports, he was a frat boy, he took acting lessons, he appeared in some TV episodes, etc, etc. The really strange thing is that John deleted the People refs but he left the text in place, even when it was a little bit controversial, such as when it gets into the various people Pitt has dated. I think the People refs should be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Even though it's a tabloid gossip rag? You're right, I should have deleted all the stuff that was poorly sourced rather than tagging it, I'll get to that. Keeping those refs would necessitate changing WP:BLPSOURCES, which would take a far greater consensus than I've seen here. --John (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can get to it, and then I will eventually revert you, and take you to WP:ANI later on. You don't get to remove valid sources based on your definition of "a tabloid gossip rag" and you don't get to violate WP:Consensus because you insist that there is not enough consensus here opposing you. As that policy states, consensus is not about voting, and the one person who supported you has even stated that using People is fine for the material that it was sourced to. Furthermore, as has been stated in this discussion, WP:Consensus has consistently been that People is okay to use for biographical content. You can take your power-hungry, abusive administrator tactics elsewhere...because I will not tolerate it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverted. As seen in that diff-link, John removed uncited material "per Binksternet," which is ridiculous because that is not what Binksternet stated. That removal also shows that John is willing to edit that article based on what he interprets there is support for here, but not based on what there is actual support for here. It will not be surprising if he reverts me, and possibly blocks me at some point during my reverting him (if I decide to revert him more than once or twice)...though he is WP:INVOLVED. It would be helpful to have editors who have been involved in this discussion helping to counter John's disruption there, and to possibly weigh in on this matter at WP:ANI...should it go to WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Taken to WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with your revert Flyer22. John, you need to present arguments, not obvious red herrings, why you think People is an unreliable tabloid and gain consensus for your view as it's used for sourcing in thousands of article. Simply reiterating "It's a tabloid!" is not helpful. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  15:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Jauersockdude?/dude. 15:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia apparently allows the use of People as a source for uncontroversial matter in BLPs, I suggest that editors might not be aware of some issues with People and a couple of other celebrity oriented publications. For one thing, celebrities now actually control the papparazzi through services such as WireImage; this means that magazines such as People are essentially delivering publicity material for celebrities. This may be allowed on Wikipedia, as I believe we can use celebrities' official websites; but, it is not good sourcing because it implies something that is not conveyed to the reader by listing People as its source. I think Wikipedia should reconsider this policy, and I think that People should not be allowed for a BLP source for celebrity articles even for positive information. Wikipedia editors disapprove of non-celebrities using Wikipedia to advertise, why allow celebrities the same privilege? Even if it is in 10,000 articles, if it is not a reliable source because it is manipulated by the celebrities for producing a crafted public image, the effort should be made to remove the articles, if community consensus is reached that it is not an appropriate source. Flyer22, thank you for realizing the community consensus nature of this discussion and opening this thread. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC))
 * "I suggest that editors might not be aware of some issues with People and a couple of other celebrity oriented publications."
 * AfadsBad, do you have any links to articles where these conflict of interest issues are discussed? They would be useful for assessing the weight to place on your assertions of unreliability. Right now though we just have your opinion that this is the case. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That does appear to be the standard for everyone else, opinion. However  a search on papparazzi and wireimage will bring up the information; wireimage was the director of the change, and the biggest, but it turned highly profitable, jacking up the prices of celebrity pics, and People was the first mag to go along with it by buying some pics showing a celeb reading a different magazine, although I probably have the story a bit mixed up. Unfortunately I am swamped right now, but it seems a discussion of this nature would have had a call for sources from everyone. (By swamped I mean time crunch due to being flooded.) Please run a search and, if you find time, a WireImage article, rather than the Getty redirect would be a place to pop the sources. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC))

People magazine is a celebrity gossip magazine, that much is certain. However, their reputation for reliability is the highest in the genre. Journalist Alexander Cockburn wrote about gossip rags in 1976 for New York Magazine and he assessed People highly. Writer Anthony Slide discusses the magazine in a chapter about the 1970s and beyond in his 2010 book Inside the Hollywood Fan Magazine. Slide characterizes People as "the most successful personality-oriented publication on the market", with its content staying lightweight and trivial, never heavy-handed. Slide and Cockburn both compliment the steadying hand of managing editor Richard Stolley who was previously assistant manager of Life magazine. Veteran fan magazine editor Micki Seidel says that she cannot think of any gossip rag editor who has risen to employment at People. Slide says the difference between People and other gossip rags is the vast news organization behind People, and that it "employed fact checkers to read stories prior to publication, something unheard of in fan magazines." Cal Poly English professor Richard Keller Simon compares People favorably to National Enquirer and other tabloids in his book Trash Culture. Simon says that while the Enquirer likes to dwell on the lurid and dirty, People prefers the upbeat happy ending. He says People, among celebrity-content magazines, "is more likely to be filled with other stories that are closer to the contents of the mainline news magazines." Writer Jeannette Walls describes in her book Dish how People magazine is seen by celebrities as more likely to treat a difficult subject with fairness, for instance with Carol Burnett's choosing to go to People with a story about her daughter's drug abuse rather than allowing the National Enquirer to investigate the matter on their own. Editor Stolley said of the incident that "it helped establish People as a place to go if you had a terrible secret to tell. We would handle it gracefully and sympathetically." These assessments help People to rise above the generally seamy genre of tabloid to become known as the most reliable of the bunch. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't appear to be using People from the 1970s, and your recent source, at least one, does mntion that celebrities are using the mag, negotiating for picture placement, like an ad, a press release. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Slide's 2010 book says People uses fact-checking unlike other fan mags. Whatever text may be offered/negotiated by a celebrity is subsequently fact-checked to arrive at what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose celebrity press releases are reliable, if biased sources. Still, I would flunk a student who wrote a biographical sketch of an historical subject using their press releases for anything but dates--you don't allow a subject to dictate what is noteworthy. Carefully crafted information released to the public with SEO does not make it noteworthy. People is scum disguised as journalism--here, let's decide what you want printed about you, as if what you pick is what is newsworthy, then we'll fact-check to make it seem like journalism. Excuse me while I barph. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Every general circulation newspaper and magazine uses press releases for story ideas, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and nothing that would make any reasonable person vomit, either literally or figuratively. Even our most prestigious newspapers publish celebrity news and closely related society news. Reliable publications take a tiny percentage of the more interesting press releases they receive, and use them as the starting point for independent reporting, fact checked under professional editorial supervision. Purism regarding such matters has no basis in real world practice.


 * Thank you,, for doing the research that backs up your opinion and mine at the beginning of this conversation.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  04:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the business and lifestyle sections; which is why I disagree with BLPs, often self-published on Wikipedia, establishing notability using those same sources. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Also, they don't write the press reports with the celebrities; they simply look at what has come their way. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Your argument would be more convincing if it referenced reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I referenced your source, above. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * AfadsBad, I greatly appreciate your article content and creation contributions. In this thread, however, I don't think your argument is very strong. If you could find reliable sources to strengthen it you would have a more convincing case. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I simply don't have time. My internet keeps going down. "Academics accounted for 7.6% of all quotations in the data set, while clinical psychologists accounted for 4.0% and advocacy groups accounted for 4.7%. U.S. News and World Report and Time used academic sources for 15.9% and 14.2% of their quotes respectively, while only 0.9% percent of quotes in People came from an academic source. Articles in People relied far more heavily on quotes from victims, accused offenders, and their families (74.5% of all quotes) than any of the other magazines (27.4% of all quotes)." ""The media unquestioningly spread the whole story and even declared her broken bones to be the result of torture which Lynch had to endure "to become a hero of the Iraqi war" (Kumar ibid: 301). Additionally, the glossy appearance of pictures of Lynch in the PEOPLE magazine may have added to the impression that Lynch was some kind of star. Representative for many other magazines in the US its story was "rife with unnamed sources, glittering generalities, just folks elements and breathtaking name calling." Also, the article refers to higher powers, which helped during the rescue ("God smiled on us that night" (Martyn 2008 136-137))." The Manufacture of Heroes: A Critical Comparison of the Press Coverage of the British Campaign in Afghanistan... by Urs Endhardt (although possibly an unreliable source itself, quoting from other sources). I'm not sure why editors want to use People as a source; it is a self-declared gossip rag. Its mission is to sell magazines, not report information in any reliable way. Its biased, slanted (heavily, though both pro and anti-victim, see first article), and it is selling magazines through salacious content. Thanks for the compliment. Most people haven't a clue about the articles I edit, so it makes me seem like a VIE. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

The link you provided,, discusses the incidence of academic sources being used in articles about child sexual abuse. Although I consider People a reliable source on celebrity biographies, I do not consider it a reliable source for any academic topic, including child sexual abuse. If a movie star marries a Nobel prize winning scientist, People is a reliable source for the marriage and the wedding date, not for a description of the scientist's work. Similarly with Nobel prize winner Henry Way Kendall, who was also a mountaineer. A reputable mountaineering journal is a perfectly acceptable reference for his mountaineering accomplishments, but not for his discoveries in physics. Every reliable source has its limitations, and every one screws up from time to time, as People and many others did with regards to Jessica Lynch.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are limiting information to the type of source it comes from, mountaineering information comes from reputable mountaineering journals, science comes from peer-reviewed science journals, and gossip comes from gossip magazines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine or a gossip magazine.
 * It is not reputable, because it works with celebrities to carefully craft its stories, which amount to very expensive press releases created working with the magazine's staff, the celebrities and WireImage, etc., etc.
 * "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, ...." Even Outdoor magazine has to answer to the public for the reliability of its information. No on is seriously asking a celebrity magazine to answer for its articles. It does publish stories about child sexual abuse, the Catholic Church scandal, for instance. Do we have a policy outlining the specific types of information that we can use from People, or do we just wing it case-by-case, thus creating the type of never-ending drama currently at AN/I? If you want to use People, why not justify exactly what type of information can be sourced to it, and what can't. Then, when you get down to celebrity press release gossip is the only thing you can source to it, go ahead and justify the news-worthiness of the press release. If you can do the last, you can find a reliable source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * From Identifying reliable sources "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." Yes AfadsBad, we are, as you said, "limiting information to the type of source it comes from". Your argument isn't helped by suggesting otherwise. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 06:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what you are saying or accusing me of. I said that People should be limited to gossip, in response to someone else's post about limits, I agreed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It doesn't gossip. So, that leaves People out as a source. Next time I source the authority of a plant order, I will look for the information in cook books. --(AfadsBad (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Not sure what encyclopedic articles you read, but most of us (as well as the NY Times, Britannica, etc.) don't consider information about marriages, family, etc., "gossip". They also often include the subject's views and experiences as gleaned through interviews. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  08:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the marriage and family are notable, they are cited in other, reliable sources. People is a gossip magazine. I just got told we get mountaineering information from mountain magazines, and science from science, so, if People is a gossip magazine, and its other information (an article on child sexual assaults) is not reliable, only what its area is, that leaves gossip. And, since, if the event is notable, it is published in a non-gossip rag, then we don't really need People. The book points out that they highly slant views and experiences; and, of course, since the celebrity is orchestrating the interview, that also biases it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Spouses and family always rate a mention in a biography. Show me a detailed NY Times obit that omits mention of them. And yes, marriages will appear in other sources - in other celebrity magazines. My local or national newspaper certainly isn't going to report on each one. Finally, you can repeat "gossip rag!" as many times as you want. Your assertion doesn't make it so. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  08:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "... One non-obvious example is Larry King, shown in the bottom left corner of the map, who had a high closeness value to People magazine, a celebrity gossip magazine." "Towards an industrial history of celebrity gossip: The National Enquirer, People Magazine and ‘personality journalism’ in the 1970s." "Modern Difficulties in Resolving Old Problems: Does the Actual Malice Standard Apply to Celebrity Gossip Blogs; Cioppettini, Victoria." Claims to Fame Celebrity in Contemporary America Joshua Gamson. And a couple thousand more from Google Scholar. Ouch, this is not the discussion I thought it was. You really think People is not a gossip mag. I don't know where to go from there --(AfadsBad (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * And you really think People is only a gossip magazine. I don't know how you define gossip but Google gives me, "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true." Other editors have pointed out People uses fact checkers. So are you saying People regularly prints untrue statements? -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  10:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent)You might read both the Wikipedia article on gossip and on People and some of their sources. I didn't know google was a good dictionary. I use standard sources, you might check them before or after the other suggested reading. "Rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature. A person who habitually spreads intimate or private rumors or facts. Trivial, chatty talk or writing." American Heritage Dictionary. Personal, sensational, trivial, not notable, and created for sensationalism. But, clearly you disparage gossip rags, and I have provided sources that it is one, and ofhers, above, agree that it is one, so, you demand sources, I give them, you still deny it. In other words, sourced, unsourced, does not matter what I say, what the dictionary says, what journals or books say. So, there is nothing left for me to say to you. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * You might want to read Google dictionary. "...the content now came from another Oxford dictionary, the Oxford American College Dictionary" And, yes, we have nothing more to say to each other. You take a binary good source/bad source approach while I prefer to take a more nuanced stand. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  11:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually you're the one who said only a gossip mag, your emphasis, so technically your binary person is you. You are making me up, so we weren't really saying anything to each other, already. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * PS Note the dead link in the google dictionary article infobox. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I have never said People was only a gossip mag. I said " you really think People is only a gossip magazine". And PS: Note the sentence "...part of its functionality was integrated into Google Search using the define: operator." -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  11:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right you said "only a gossip magazine." --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * As I've pointed out earlier in this thread, self-published works like a personal blog or Facebook are considered a reliable source for non-contentious biographical information (WP:SELFSOURCE). You need to establish why a People interview is any different. How is People working with celebrities to "craft" the msg different than self published sources which consensus already says are acceptable for personal information? D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 06:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is Facebook or a blog considered a "reliable source"? Do we limit the type of information we can get from these sources? --(AfadsBad (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * AfadsBad, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That enhanced the situation. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Manipulation as to consensus
I have now been told that by believing editors were truthful in saying there already existed consensus for using People in BLPs, I have essentially established the consensus for using it. No. This is the ultimate manipulative bs. If there never was any consensus prior to this discussion, as admitted by Flyer22 below, I will join User:John in removing it. I do not concede that by believing people, by assuming good faith, that I agree to the use of People. This is disgusting. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Not what I stated. And you should remove this section because not only is it wrong, it is not respecting thread order (WP:TALK). Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward
How about specific guidelines about what People can be used for. If they have a rep for fact-checking, but cannot be used for anything but celebrity marriages and birthdates, let's spell it out, reason it out. But it seems they should be usable for anything, if it is fact-checked. Mountaineering magazines that do articles on otherwise famous climbers fact check the non-climbing information and would be a good source for background on the scientist, billionaire, short-roped celebrity. Appears this is not the case for People. So, what are its limits? I would put the whole magazine off the list of reliable sources for BLPs. You say it is good for some things, not others, please spell it out for me and future editors, with sources. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Time has a strong reputation as a reliable source - and People does not have any reputation for being a problematic source for Wikipedia.  It meets WP:RS and is generally acceptable for Wikipedia articles, including BLPs.  I believe this has been stated forcefully by many above.  AFAIK, it is not the Weekly World News or the like, and is not a "tabloid."  It does not promote specific special interests, and is about as innocuous as is imaginable.  It does, in fact, cover people other than film and tv actors, and I seriously doubt the about long discussion affects the opinions of a clear consensus here.   And since the consensus is so crystal clear here, I consider the issue quite sufficiently settled.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If it were crystal clear, there would not be days of discussion at AN/I. However, this is not the place for continuing to debate whether editors consider People a reliable source for BLPs. It appears that the consensus here is that many do. Feel free to continue arguing it, above.
 * Many editors wanting to use People concede it is of limited use, defining that is what is taking place here, in hopes of forestalling User:John's continued actions and future AN/I threads a mile long with a clear-cut linkable policy. I think it can be done if people put their minds to it, and it can be done well, sourced, made readable and useful for other editors. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * The discussion here does not warrant your comments above, and thus seems to be verging on being tendentious, which I am sure you do not intend. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be helpful to try and write a guideline defining what can be used from People and what cannot. The range of possible facts taken from People is too large to be easily captured in a guideline. I think the reliable sources guideline is already suitable for this purpose.
 * As an example, the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake article uses People to support the fact that the pilot of the Goodyear blimp reported he felt the earthquake even though he was airborne. See "A City Trembled, Its People Held", People, October 30, 1989. If the pilot becomes notable then the magazine can be used in his biography to cite his comments about that event. The 1989 article could be used for other BLP facts such as Cybill Shepherd visiting San Francisco at the time.
 * At the Tad Skylar Agoglia biography, People is used as a general reference establishing notability along with a CNN piece. If People were not allowed as a cite, the Agoglia bio would have more trouble surviving AfD.
 * Convicted murderer Scott Peterson has a People reference in his biography to support a fact about the removal of a juror from his court trial.
 * People magazine is used as a reference in many BLPs including Rosie O'Donnell, Mitt Romney, Sean Duffy, Florynce Kennedy, Jennifer O'Neill, Ali MacGraw, Cher and more. Reporting for People can take many forms—I'm afraid that a tailored guideline restricting the use of People would not be able to anticipate all the possibilities. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's our article on the dismissal of juror no. 5, tied to the People magazine:
 * "One juror was removed early in the trial due to misconduct and was replaced, this on a complaint by CourtTV. A videotape showed the juror and Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson's older brother, speaking as they passed one another in the courthouse.[22]"
 * Here's what People says:
 * "Juror No. 5 in the Scott Peterson double-murder trial was dismissed from the jury on Tuesday after admitting that he discussed the media coverage with his girlfriend." It also says they were standing and waiting at the security checkpoint, not passing one another. The People article does not mention CourtTV. Maybe the first sentence is simply unsourced?
 * Are we paid shills for People? None of this information came from People. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * The magazine is not paying me; I don't know about others but I doubt it. I can give the magazine my address to send any checks...
 * You might want to ask User:Chaser why the People reference was added to the Peterson bio even though the pre-existing, fact-tagged text was clearly based on something from CourtTV. Perhaps Chaser felt that "Juror Removed" in the People article was enough to support a fact about juror removal; we'll have to hear from Chaser to find out. Unlike your reaction to keep the text and dump the ref, I think the CourtTV text should be removed and the People reference restored, this time with text based on the actual cited source. In other words, the People reference is reliable for us to use. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Modesto Bee, LA Times, and a CNN report on FindLaw.com, and they were all different; the CNN report on FindLaw is the one I would use, and I think it is what we currently have in the article. I would not use the People in this case; they put it up too early, and it appears to disagree with the other reports. My internet is in and out, so I could not add it, plus I having lived in Ceres, there's hardly an article I would rather edit less. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

I would suggest that we not attempt to limit what People can be used as a source for without first presenting actual evidence that it is a deficient source. I would further suggest that WP:RS/N would be a better venue for discussing general questions about the reliability of a source and its usage on Wikipedia. I'll say this much, howeber: People has extensive editorial oversight, a reputation not only for fact-checking but for accuracy, and they are one of the leading publications of Time, Inc., which is one of the largest and most reputable magazine publishers in the world and has been for many decades. It is unfortunate that the magazine's focus on celebrities apparently leads some people to equate it with unreliable publications sharing its focus. Rivertorch (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I provided evidence above, and it was dismissed. It is clear that People is a popular source for Wikipedia celebrity editors and nothing will get it removed, no amount of evidence. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Let me clarify. I would suggest we not attempt to limit what People can be used as a source for without first presenting actual evidence that it is typically a deficient source relative to other sources. I know of no source—newspaper, magazine, broadcasting network, or web site—that makes no errors whatsoever. Even The New Yorker gets it wrong sometimes. Rivertorch (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. That is what I provided above. Since all sources are deficient in some way, I will start citing to the Daily Mail. (Talk about binary, since nothing is perfect, we can use anything....) --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Oh, please. No one suggested anything of the sort. That's roughly analogous to someone who's afraid of bridges (because even reputedly good ones occasionally collapse) deciding to swim the mile-wide, icy river. As a community of encyclopedia creators and maintainers, we do need to exercise editorial judgment, particularly when extraordinary claims about living persons are involved, but the scale of Wikipedia demands that we establish norms for what sources are accepted in most cases. Over more than a decade, we have established that People magazine is generally acceptable as a reliable source. If there is evidence that we've erred, I'd certainly like to know about it, but I'm not seeing that in this thread. There's actually quite a lot at stake: the number of articles with citations to People numbers at least in the hundreds and probably much higher, and it includes a number of stable articles, including FAs. Rivertorch (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're the one on about no source makes no errors whatsoever. A pointless and meaningless comment. Already had the time wasting superlatives, and I now see why John acted as he did. Although Flyer22 was willing to discuss the issue, no one here is. "I know of no source that makes no errors whatsoevr." Let's see 'People fact check that. Yet editors can't even quote People'' accurately. I checked four of the articles you named, and two were wrong. And editors are using it for information about a trial! This is pointless. It is not a discussion. Good-bye. "I know of no source that makes no errors whatsoever." There: nothing from me, too. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Um, if editors can't quote People accurately how is that the fault of People? The same could happen with the NY Times. All editors are saying is that we should use regular editorial judgment when sourcing content to People, the same we do with tens of thousands of other sources. For example, the vaunted NY Times is not generally an accepted WP:MEDRS. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  22:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: Like I stated at WP:ANI, there is this message from John <Strike>that reaffirms that he will continue to act disruptively; he makes it very clear that he will continue to warn and/or block editors who use or restore even People sources on biographies of living persons, despite the clear WP:Consensus at this noticeboard on the use of People, the consistent consensus that has resulted from this noticeboard and at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard regarding the use of this source, and despite the sufficient number of comments at WP:ANI about the inappropriateness of his behavior in this regard. Well, like I stated on my talk page, "If I come across John removing sources and/or the text that goes with it because of his personal dislike of those sources instead of whether or not they have actually been deemed unsuitable by Wikipedia policy and/or the Wikipedia community, I will revert him. ... It is especially important not to let him do so on WP:Good and WP:Featured articles." So, yes, we will be right back at WP:ANI regarding this matter sooner or later. If he warns and/or blocks me, if I see him warn and/or block any editor, for using sources that have been deemed fine to use by Wikipedia policy and/or the Wikipedia community, I will seek that appropriate action be taken against him. It's already been noted by others at WP:ANI what will happen to him if he does block me for using or restoring such a source when it is a content dispute and not a BLP violation, but he obviously does not care about the consequences that will follow. And so it is what it is. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)</Strike>
 * May I make a suggestion? If that should, in fact, occur, rather than edit war, why don't you start either a WP:RFC, or, if you really think nothing less will work, a WP:RFAR? Feel free to notify everyone who participated in the WP:ANI discussions, as long as you make sure to notify all participants, and not just those on one "side". Taking action that gets you blocked is never the right thing to do. Dispute resolution is. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions, GRuban. I wasn't going to take any action that would get me blocked, though, unless resulting in John blocking me. And I am always fair when it comes to making sure both sides get a chance to weigh in on matters. As for WP:RfCs, like I stated above, "given the turnout (number of people participating) for WP:RfC and the other dispute resolution processes, being more iffy, and considering the relevancy of the WP:BLP noticeboard in this case, going to the WP:BLP noticeboard about it was probably the best route." And I'm certain that no outcome from a WP:RfC or any other form of dispute resolution that deems People and similar non-tabloid sources okay to use would cause John to be okay with that consensus. We need a wide-scale WP:RfC on this (one that alerts the entire Wikipedia community of the matter), if anything, though John obviously still would not be okay with consensus that opposes his views on this. But actually reading all of the aforementioned message from John, it appears that he has conceded that community consensus is against him on the use of People and the other sources he dislikes but that have been deemed fine to use by the community; he stated the he "concede[s] they are not quite 'tabloids' so strictly fall outside of current policy," which indicates that he may not continue to act the way he has acted with regard to these sources. He might still remove them, but he will hopefully replace them with WP:Reliable sources if he does. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed wording for RFC
Thoughts? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  19:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Can People continue to be used as a reliable source in BLP's?
 * 2) If the answer to 1 is Yes, under what circumstances should People not be used as a source in BLP's?


 * Sounds good. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Yes. By way of background, it might be useful to indicate that People is already cited in many BLP articles (e.g. replace "be used" with "continue to be used"); I think that wouldn't prejudice the neutrality of the question. Where is this RfC to take place? Rivertorch (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My thought is to put it on WP:RSN or create a subpage off it and advertise it on BLPN, the Biography Project, and probably WP:VPM. I have no comment on your proposed wording change as I really, really don't want to be accused of starting a flawed RFC. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  20:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Per what I stated in the section immediately above this one, I don't see how this WP:RfC will be useful unless it is a wide-scale WP:RfC. Should WP:Consensus during it deem that People is not valid for use on WP:BLPs, the only way that the results of this WP:RfC can be used to trump the consistent WP:Consensus that has resulted from discussions at this noticeboard and the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard with regard to the use of People being suitable/valid/reliable for WP:BLPs is if there is a good turnout (a significant number of people weighing in on the matter). WP:RfCs these days very often tend not to have good turnouts, unless they are advertised on a massive scale (meaning at the top of Wikipedia so that any editor may see it). But maybe NeilN's advertisement approach will sufficiently work. I also agree with Rivertorch to make it clear that this source is widely accepted on WP:BLPs and to briefly note why that is. For balance, it should also briefly note why some editors don't think it is a suitable/valid/reliable source for WP:BLPs. Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All that can be taken up in the RFC by those who disagree with it, stating that it is currently acceptable practice, as ecidenced by the use in FAs is not the same thing, so I added that to the wording. I think for this discussion, Neil's suggestion plus top of Wikipedia is appropriate. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
 * "Currently accepted practice" is what I meant for "widely accepted." And I see that you tweaked NeilN's proposal by adding "continue to," but I still feel that the proposal needs a bit of backstory (a brief summary of both sides). Most people, at least from what I've seen, who participate in a WP:RfC want a summary of the most important facts right from the start and don't read through enough of the arguments if there appears to be a lot of them (WP:Too long, didn't read). Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought I added a note that we should add a brief background, but I think the primary proposal is not the same as a neutral background, so I would rather get input on this, trust Neil to write very brief background and link to the rest. Would that work? --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
 * A very large RFC Requests for comment/Muhammad images linked to prior discussions by way of providing background. I would write something like "A number of BLP's use People magazine for sourcing various statements. A concern has been raised that People does not meet the sourcing standards laid out by WP:BLP." -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  21:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought I could trust you for something neutral. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC))


 * Needs refinement - This really needs to be at WP:RSN and not here, and the RFC as stated is too broad. The response experienced editors will give is "It depends on what the article is, what the content being supported is, and what particular People magazine article (or article type) is being used."  20:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It will be, this is justbhe propsed wording. That does seem to be what got us into this mess in the first place, and maybe the RFC will need refinement, but let people voice an opinion on the refinement during the RFC, keeping the start wording as broad as possible. This part needs input, but does not need to reach perfection. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
 * The article is a BLP and doesn't the second question provide an opportunity for editors to qualify their answers? There are a hundred potential uses for a source. We cannot list them all. How would you narrow the scope? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  21:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have suggestions for that, and I will put them in the RFC, not here. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Neil, well, your response "There are a hundred potential uses for a source" is spot on, and that's the trouble with trying to resolve this with an RFC like the one proposed. With the way the RFC is phrased, no actionable result can come out of it, all we're going to end up with is (at best), "It depends."  For this particular discussion, if not everyone agrees consensus is clear, we can ask for an outside editor to close it, and there's always WP:DRN.    21:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The probability that everyone will agree on anything is zero, yet consensus has been met on many things. I thing you can feel free to try to sink the RFC on the basis of whatever when it opens. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I think two results can come out of it. A consensus to avoid using People on BLPs altogether. Consensus not to use People in specific cases. This would cut down on some of the arguments. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  21:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , I guess I'd be happy with a result of "People is useful for certain things but not others." What the "certain things" are will be debated.  What I would like to avoid is unthinking, blind removal of every use of People in every BLP everywhere, and if this RFC can achieve that, I support it.   02:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Or even to continue with the "common sense" method that I consider absurd, but we will have a linkable community based guideline, whatever we wind up with. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
 * In giving this more thought, I see two potential problems. One, the singling out of People. There are other magazines that aren't entirely dissimilar, and I have to wonder whether a decision on this one (assuming the RfC results in a clear decision) would open the door to a plethora of comparable RfCs, each geared toward one specific publication. Also, if there's any chance at all that we will end up with a decision to avoid using People on any BLPs, then the current status of its usage as a source ought to be quantified and noted in the RfC wording. Otherwise, we may end up with a situation where a vast number of articles need to be "fixed" and watched carefully—maybe more carefully than the available human resources we can muster on short notice. Rivertorch (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which other magazines? What do you mean by "quantified?" --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Us Weekly is very similar to People, founded as a response to People's success. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do editors routinely use it in BLPs like People? My impression was editors were claiming that People was different fom other tabloids, not like US, in other words? --(AfadsBad (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I specifically avoided mentioning other sources as I wanted a decision on People itself, based on its own merits, and not a "class of magazine", as People is used in a huge number of articles.  -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  01:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, I thought that was your reasoning. My questions remain. For the record, while People and US may have certain tabloid-like qualities, neither qualifies as a tabloid (and Entertainment Weekly isn't one either, as long as we're on the subject). Rivertorch (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you link to FAs where editors are using these other sources? I only saw disussions about People? -(AfadsBad (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Though we will be focusing on People for this WP:RfC, something needs to be done with regard to the New York Daily News as well, considering that John has recently indicated on his talk page to Herostratus that he still considers that a tabloid. He likely feels that way because it uses tabloid (newspaper format). But like I noted at WP:ANI, "As the Tabloid (newspaper format) article points out, tabloid format does not [necessarily] equal 'tabloid.' Many valid newspapers use that format." NeilN also pointed this out to John with regard to that source. Additionally, judging by that aforementioned linked reply to Herostratus, John seems to think that this WP:RfC will trump the widespread/consistent WP:Consensus with regard to using People as a source on biographies of living persons if it produces WP:Consensus not to use it, which is yet another downside to this WP:RfC; the last thing we need is John thinking that this WP:RfC gives him free license to remove the source whenever he comes across it in a biography of a living person. If the WP:RfC produces a great turnout, then he might have a leg to stand on in that case; I would also be more willing to not use People or to restore People in that case. Flyer22 (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

On the one hand having a whole, wide-ranging RFC on just one tabloid is far too narrow - what about all the others? On the other hand, trying to define clear rules for use and disallowance of all the articles that have been published (or may be published in the future) by one tabloid is far too wide - who knows what they might come up with? Actually WP:BLPSOURCES is very clear: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." The linked article explains that tabloid journalism is a style of journalism, not a paper size, and may appear at some time in any publication. A better RFC would be to determine the policy definition of tabloid journalism rather than relying on a main-space article to do it for us. I think sidelining this into a whole issue about one or a few particular publications, effectively derails the whole purpose of the debate. --Nigelj (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that the WP:Consensus here is that People is not a tabloid (as noted in the section immediately above this one, even John has conceded to the view that People is not a tabloid), but that sources that are clearly tabloids (such as The Sun) should generally not be used on biographies of living persons. But, obviously, people have different opinions on what a tabloid is. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I simply do not see tabloids being added and accepted as sources in BLPs on Wikipedia. I see People being used extensively, and that is why this RFC arose, editorial disagreement about it being onsidered a reliable source. An editor claimed US is being used, but I can find articles, FAs, with People citations, but not a single one with a citation to US. The New York Daily News is not a tabloid, so it should not be discussed here. I will look at what User:John is doing there, but can we leave that issue out of this?
 * Is US being used as a reliable source for BLPs? If so, please provide examples. Thanks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
 * My point is that there is no policy that I know of for or against using tabloid newspapers as sources, and there is never likely to be one. The relevant policy clearly states that there are restrictions on the use of tabloid journalism as a BLP source, and (via a link) that tabloid journalism is possible in almost any journal, as well as that there are items that are probably not tabloid journalism in almost every low quality rag too, from time to time. Will nobody address this point? I think I have made it about four times so far, in two different fora, and every time the debate about 'The People' and other specific tabloid titles continues either side of my comment as if I hadn't spoken. --Nigelj (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me try to be clearer: Some articles in People are examples of unreliable 'tabloid' journalism, and in the same issue others may not be, and that depends on the article, the author and the background and purpose of the article. But the same is true for almost every other journal, magazine and newspaper, just the proportions will differ. Trying to define whether People is tabloid or not, or whether People is a reliable source or not, (in general) are hopeless and a complete waste of the community's time. The useful thing to do is to try to set out guidelines for how to detect whether a certain statement in any publication is 'tabloid' or not, and so whether it is useful as a BLP source. That's what I think. --Nigelj (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This forum is about the use of People. You raise a different issue that I don't see a problem with on Wikipedia, I see tabloid sources removed from BLPs, all of the time, but I see editors fighting about People. And I asked for examples of tabloids being used in BLPs, and every time I do, it is as if I had not spoken. In fact, we are now discussing your issue in response to my ignored question. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Surely editors who want to deflect the discussion about the removal of a 'tabloid source' into a question of 'Is People a tabloid, or is it not?' are simply using a strawman technique? Such removals (or additions) have to be justified on the case-by-case basis of 'is this piece of article text relying on sourcing to tabloid journalism, or is it not?' There will never be a useful answer to the first question, and while you're all off debating it, (a) the detailed sourcing questions remain un-addressed, and (b) the idea of blanket deletions remains an apparent option. --Nigelj (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Nigelj references to some sources will be removed uncontroversially and without the need for justification beyond "not a WP:RS" because their reputation for doing tabloid journalism outweighs any non-tabloid pieces they could produce. We are trying to determine if People meets that definition. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  23:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

All right, we will never all agree on the precise wording and aims so I'm going to move forward in a few hours and get a RFC on WP:RSN going on a narrow topic:

A number of biographies use People magazine for sourcing various statements. Concerns have been raised that People does not meet the sourcing standards laid out by WP:BLP. The full discussion can be found here


 * 1) Can People continue to be used as a reliable source in BLP's?
 * 2) If the answer to 1 is Yes, under what circumstances should People not be used as a source in BLP's?

-- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I still can't help but feel that the WP:RfC should make it clear that there has been consistent WP:Consensus to use People in biographies of living persons, not simply that it is used in biographies of livings persons. To me, that would be more neutrally countering the "Concerns have been raised" line. After all, plenty of unsuitable sources are often used in WP:BLPs; for example, Internet Movie Database (IMDb) is generally shunned by experienced editors with regard to using it as a source for biographies of livings persons or for anything in general, with a few exceptions, but it is still commonly found in WP:BLPs and in general in the non-exception ways. Better to state upfront that there is consensus to use People than to expect that most or even enough editors are going to sufficiently read enough of this long WP:BLP noticeboard discussion about the source to find out that consensus exists for using the source. They may look at the headcount and come to the conclusion that People has been deemed okay, but the weight of the arguments matter more...and too many people have a "too long, didn't read" mentality (I'm usually not one of those people, but we have many of them at this site). Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to a conversation (prior to this) that discusses this consensus? Or is it a more a silent agreement "we've always used People" kind of thing? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  19:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then add and link to this consensus when the RFC opens, Flyer22. But, also Neil22 will add all community discussion and consensus links that are relevant. Not an issue; include all important information with links. Yes, it will be included. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I could go digging in the archives and see if I find past discussions, NeilN, though that would take some time and I'm too lazy to do that at this time. But from the initial part of this long discussion above (in the first part of the section), it seems that Zad68 found, fairly easily, past WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussions that deemed People a reliable source. Before Zad68 had even done that, I'd mentioned that People has been consistently deemed a reliable source on that noticeboard as well. All that stated, we don't have to use the word consistent, obviously. But, per my statements above with regard to the WP:RfC, I'd prefer something about consensus being mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is disagreeing with adding something about the current consensus. The wording is fine, and a note with links to the current consensus at the top of the RFC is important, but it does require links. I am new to BLP sourcing concerns and cannot find specific discussions. I think Neil can go with hat he has and editors can add the current consensus when a link is provided. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
 * AfadsBad, NeilN will already be linking to one WP:Consensus discussion -- this one. This one is likely the biggest one at this time. I stated above why I do not feel that simply linking to it or other WP:Consensus discussions is best. That it's best to, in addition to providing links for backstory, put in the initial WP:RfC wording something along the lines of "WP:Consensus at the WP:BLP noticeboard is that People magazine is suitable for sourcing various statements in biographies of living persons." I don't feel that this is a non-neutral add-on, considering that it is contrasted by "Concerns have been raised that People does not meet the sourcing standards laid out by WP:BLP." Without the context I've proposed, the original wording seems to me to indicate a dire matter of editors having just now stumbled on to the fact that People is used in biographies of living persons and are now looking to purge it from Wikipedia. But I've stated enough on this matter, the whole matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just don't see that, anything dire in Neil's statement, and it is accurate, concerns have been raised, should we say they've been raised for a long time? We would have to link to that. But  the statement you suggest must be sourced to wherever it originated, and I can't find that, but someone will, and when they do, it should be added. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
 * My proposed wording of "WP:Consensus at the WP:BLP noticeboard is that People magazine is suitable for sourcing various statements in biographies of living persons." would be sourced to this noticeboard discussion of course. You and others who have participated in it (including John) agree that WP:Consensus from this noticeboard discussion is that People is suitable to use for biographies of living persons. As for NeilN's wording, I agree to disagree. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol. You mean there is no prior consensus, and everyone saying there was misrepresented the consensus? That takes the cake, unbelievable. Now I am just going to start removing it. No, I do not concede consensus, now that I have learned there never was one. I thought you all were saying there was. What bs. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I and others in this discussion have made it clear that there is prior WP:Consensus. I even noted in my "20:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)" reply above Zad68 having looked at prior WP:Consensus from archives at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. This discussion is the latest and likely currently the biggest WP:Consensus on the matter. And even if there was no prior WP:Consensus, this latest WP:Consensus would still exist. I'm confused by your response, and do not understand the rudeness from it at all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There have been limited discussions on WP:RSN:, ,. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  22:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which, like I noted at WP:ANI, I knew that WP:Consensus would be the same in this discussion. Predicted it before coming here. There are likely more than those, NeilN, at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard...but hidden under a title that does not identify that the discussion includes discussion of People. Though you have likely already done so, I will go ahead and look through this noticeboard's archives because I remember this noticeboard deeming People suitable to use as well, before this latest WP:Consensus discussion, unless (like I stated to Zad68 above) I was confusing this noticeboard with the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A number of biographies use People magazine for sourcing various statements. Prior limited discussions on this board have held People to be generally reliable. ,, However, concerns have been raised that People does not meet the sourcing standards laid out by WP:BLP. The full discussion outlining these concerns can be found here. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  23:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks fine, Neil. It will never be perfect, and it does not have to be. I say run with it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
 * That's fine, NeilN. Thanks for taking my suggestion into consideration. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC Open
Please participate: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates
Someone has been repeatedly inserting inaccurate and unsourced opinion to the section entitled 'blogging'. I've removed it twice since yesterday afternoon, and the history page shows several more insertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.185.136 (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've placed warnings and advice and offers of assistance on the talk pages for the two IP's who keep re-adding the same unsourced criticism. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Still happening, deleted it twice today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.185.136 (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've given the IP a final warning. If it happens again please ping me on my talk page. thanks.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Uniontown Ninja
I'd appreciate a second set of eyes on an article that I'm working on in my userspace: User:GrapedApe/Uniontown Ninja. Would be published at Uniontown Ninja. Any thoughts on the BLP considerations and the ongoing legal proceedings about the suspect (who the article doesn't name) would be appreciated.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Take a look at WP:BLPCRIME.--ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think the language complies with BLPCRIME? There's no name included and the statements are as neutral as possible--GrapedApe (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Kudos on your efforts to expand the pedia but I'm not sure this is the right approach. In addition to WP:BLPCRIME the article also has WP:COATRACK issues and seems to be like a news report rather than an encyclopedic article. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Slattery (poet)


Wholly negative bio about a poet that was embroiled in a plagiarism controversy. Definite WP:UNDUE issues, although not quite an attack page. Should the article be moved to Andrew Slattery plagiarism controversy? § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned it up a bit. I'm not sure it needs to be moved though. If he is notable then it could be fleshed out to avoid undue weight. Otherwise it may be an AfD candidate per WP:BLP1E.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Jack Burkett and The IRA


Sometime ago I added this, which is an extract from his book, to his article as detail of his time managing a League of Ireland football club particularly the section which states "some of his players at St Patricks Athletic were members of the IRA. They kept guns and balaclavas in their holdalls along with their playing kit". Seems like a notable statement to me and relevant to his time as manager and is accompanied by a picture of the player himself but an IP is removing this on the grounds that it is made up for the naïve English reader to sell Burkett's book. Rather than edit war (I have already reverted several times), any views on the next step?--Egghead06 (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be worried that that implies guilt by association (cultural/social context is everything and I'm not familiar with that), and I'm not saying that was your intention of course, but wouldn't that be better off on the team's article maybe? Ultimately if it's not a significant BLP issue (or at least that's not the grounds for the objection) it might be better to treat it as a content dispute. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

George Zimmerman
I have removed a mugshot from per WP:MUG, since he was acquitted. I see there is active discussion of this on the talk page, where I will also contribute but per the spirit of WP:BLP I figured it should be kept down until discussion is complete, at least. If anyone here wants to chime in on whether my concerns are warranted, input would be welcome. VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If the intent of WP:MUG is that mug shots should never be used when the subject was not subsequently found guilty, then WP:MUG should say "Don't use mug shots when the subject was not subsequently found guilty." It doesn't say that; it says (paraphrasing for clarity) "Don't use mug shots out of context to present the subject in a false or disparaging light." For example, if a notable actor is arrested for a minor offense but charges were subsequently dropped, I think almost anyone would agree that using the mug shot in his article would be inappropriate. In an article that is primarily about the subject's arrest and trial, however, I can't see how the mug shot could be deemed "out of context." Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct that WP:MUG does not say "never use them" but I can hardly imagine a circumstance where the use of a mug shot is not disparaging. I am against its usage in this instance as the subject was acquitted.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see the argument for using it further down the article, in the context of a trial and acquittal. In this case I removed it from the bio infobox. VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , there is a wonderful book called Breach of Peace: Portraits of the 1961 Mississippi Freedom Riders that treats mug shots as a badges of honor. That's one circumstance.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  17:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now I can "imagine" one possible circumstance :-) --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 18:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

needs an addition
Cnewmark (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC) folks, the Wikimedia folks, eg, Robert Laculus, have asked me to ask you to add the following to this page. (I'm playing by the rules) I've been named as a "nerd-in-residence" by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, seriously. That might make me officially the biggest nerd in the world. I'm still a customer service rep at craigslist

in the first citation, you need to click on Craig Newmark to see the bio citations:  Cnewmark (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems the VA has given CN the title, but is this notable enough for inclusion? Thoughts anyone?
 * Craigslist Founder Craig Newmark is a self-described nerd, as well as a pioneer of the Web, speaker, philanthropist, and a strong advocate of the use of technology for the public good. He joins the Center for Innovation as a Nerd-in-Residence to work with us in pursuing creative ways to bolster a customer service culture and capability at VA.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with including this, I think it's certainly notable and worthy of mention in his bio. And kudos to Mr. Newmark for doing it this way. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 00:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the religion of Asma al-Assad?
Asma al-Assad is Sunni or Alwite? .SpidErxD (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you or anyone think she is, I have been reverting - and will continue to revert - any attempt to add a cat or religion to the infobox that does not comply with WP:BLPCAT. Thus far, nothing has.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Asma is a Sunni Muslim and Bashar is Alawite - this is well documented.,, . Mogism (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * None of those sources complies with one of the requirements of BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" (bolding added). Those are all sources saying she is Sunni.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, only the Time source says that she is Sunni. The other two are careful not to say that, just that her parents were. Note that is reflected in the article text. (In other words, I'm agreeing with Bbb23 here. Given the circumstances, this is a highly controversial claim, even more so than a standard religious statement, and we must be very sure to get it right.) --GRuban (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

U. R. Ananthamurthy


Repeated vandalism due to the subject having expressed unpopular political views recently. Vandalised material being shared on social networks in a viral manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.4 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not enough disruption yet to merit protection. If it gets too bad then WP:RFPP is the solution. I'll be watching it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Emilie Hafner-Burton
Question that this article meets notability requirements for academics. Also, page reads like a CV. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.116.118 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that it reads like a CV. The Karl Deutsch award appears to establish Notability under criteria #2"The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."  It appears to be given to only one scholar a year and comes from an international academic society.  Perhaps someone who is familiar with this award can speak to how prestigious it is.  Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did some clean up and added some clean up tags. It need sources and the entire article is in list form. To me that's a red flag for copy vio. As far as notability she is a published author with two books and multiple peer reviewed papers. So at first glance she appears notable.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd run it by the folks at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) and see what they think. It's a small group of Editors who evaluate all AfDs of academics and weigh in on whether or not the person ranks as "notable". It's a different set of criteria than that for public figures or celebrities and can't be just the expected academic publications and activities. Warning: They are pretty tough to impress! Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Claimed death of Carolyn Cassady
Cassady is a Beat Generation figure, who was married to Neal Cassady and also intimate with Jack Kerouac, as well as a writer herself; she was portrayed extensively in Kerouac's writing, and also in movies about them, most recently by Kirsten Dunst in On the Road (film). So definitely someone whose death you'd expect to be reported somewhere in the news.

A claim that she died Sept. 20 was added to her article without citation, reverted by me, restored again without citation, reverted again, and then restored with a source that I'm not sure is reliable because it appears to be self-published by a non-notable figure (also added to the Deaths in 2013 page with the same source). I can find no reporting of this yet in Google News, which at least raises an eyebrow, so it seems that at best inclusion in the article may be premature. Thoughts? postdlf (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the source, a blog post, does not come close to meeting our standards to report a death, so I have removed it from the article.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  17:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it needs a reliable source, but in light of the fact that the blog post in question includes comments from John Allen Cassady and Jamie Cassady (her son and grandson), both saying "thank you for your comments" rather than "go away you sicko", I presume the news is true. Mogism (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If we assume the comments are from actual relatives, then yes we could assume the blog is accurate but that's too much assuming for a source to be in any way reliable.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We've now had to remove the death claim four times; I suggest protection until this is resolved. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I expect there will be at least a local obituary in a few days. I did a search and she's been featured in local papers a number of times.  Our reporting can wait until then.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made a request for pending changes status on a temp basis, here.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think blocking is the way to go for good faith edits from editors who don't likely understand our citation policies to a "T". I suggest letting the blog stand but tag it with a "Verification needed" tag for a few days. That will stop any edit reverting and allow some time for the obit to be found. If it's not found in a week or two, we can revert. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 19:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that. If she's not dead, claiming she is on the basis of a blog is the kind of thing that would quite rightly lead to a complaint from her. I agree that blocking is inappropriate for someone making a good faith effort to be helpful. Mogism (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the blog is not a reliable source, then we absolutely cannot "let it stand" for something as serious as whether she is still living. We potentially do damage by jumping the gun without proper verification and announcing her death. We do no damage by waiting until an actual, bona fide reliable source reports her death, even if that takes additional days. And waiting for that reliable source is what policy requires in this instance. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The same blog source was just reinserted again, by yet another editor. I've protected the article because pending changes obviously isn't sufficient. postdlf (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * the edit you reverted before protecting the page had another source saying she has died that you might have overlooked, from Beatdom Magazine. Would this count as a reliable source?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I had no idea about any of this discussion but apparently I am that yet another editor, ending up here when I first came across an errant post on Main Page/Errors. It's been reported in Beatdom magazine which I had added to the article but the information and the sources (one of which is Brian Hassett's blog but that doesn't mean that a blog in and of itself is necessarily unreliable) were both redacted. Hassett's post has also been repeated in full at Litkicks, which is a website with editorial oversight in the person of Levi Asher. I also just nom'ed this death to be added to the ITN/recent deaths section of the Main Page here. Thanks to Taylor for noticing that an additional source had been added in my edit. Shearonink (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like this has a reliable source now: ABC News via the AP. --  tariq abjotu  23:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the protection now that reliable sources with the death exist (and since it looks like you're not currently online). --  tariq abjotu  23:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, glad it's resolved now. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet another editor concurs (even though Beatdom Magazine reported it first, the matter has now been picked up by The Washington Post). Shearonink (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, thinking that further discussion might be good about the ITN matter, since, according to reliable sources, we have now established that this person has indeed died, I come to find out that the discussion has already been closed. I have no idea where the actual "appropriate discussion page" might be...anyone else know?  Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that further discussion is needed, since the matter seems crystal clear to me. This notable 90 year old woman died. At first, all we had was mention in beatnik blogs, and blog sources are never, ever going to be considered reliable for reporting a death on Wikipedia. We are not in the scoop business, although others are. Within a few hours, the death was reported in reliable sources, after they had done the sort of fact checking that blogs aren't expected to do. And, as an online encyclopedia, we now summarize what the reliable sources say. What's to discuss? This is exactly as it should be.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, it is not now "as it should be". Apparently my point in my previous post has been missed so I will repeat myself in this one.
 * The In the News discussion was closed. The template at that discussion says to continue the discussion on the  appropriate discussion page . I don't know what the appropriate discussion page might be, so I asked for some guidance here. When I just now checked the ITN/Recent death:Carolyn Cassady, I see that the (previously-closed/Do Not Reopen) discussion has now been re-opened, so my question above has been rendered somewhat moot, but the question still remains...  If someone nominates an item for ITN, and the discussion is closed, then where are editors supposed to discuss the matter? It might be helpful to have the appropriate "further duscussion" venue be part of the ITN/closed template. Shearonink (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The appropriate discussion page is the talk page for the article in question, until the news item, the death in this case, is verified by reliable sources. This was also an appropriate noticeboard for discussion yesterday as attempts were being made to cite the death to unreliable sources. Now, back to ITN since that issue has been resolved. Doesn't that all make sense, ?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  18:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Clear as mud, I have already weighed in on the In the News/Carolyn Cassady discussion here. Glad that the appropriate discussion page was pointed out, I did not know.  I think I could characterize myself as a fairly-experienced editor, the ITN template should have additional information added to it for beginners who come to Wikipedia full of angst about a recent news matter and then when ITN discussions have been closed they do not somehow just "know" where to continue the discussion.  How are we to expect inexperienced editors to know where to go if someone like myself did not?
 * I hope you are not implying that my work on this issue, having added an additional source beyond Haskell's blog, the one to Beatdom Magazine, should be characterized as "attempts being made to cite the death to unreliable sources". Shearonink (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Shearonink, to this uninvolved Editor, it seems like this issue has less to do with Carolyn Cassady's death and more about ITN's decision to close the discussion. If this is the case, the discussion shouldn't be moved to Cassady's Talk Page and should happen at ITN. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

many BLPs
The claim is made that, notwithstanding prior BLP/N discussions in the past and prior RS/N discussions in the past, that any source published in a tabloid format is a "tabloid" and its use is automatically verboten on any BLP whatsoever, and to that end a great many BLPs have had such sources (apparently chosen selectively - as most British newspapers are published in a tabloid format as opposed to traditional broadsheet) excised with strong comments that such sources are forbidden. Does a tabloid format automatically bar a source from being used on Wikipedia? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See my comment above, which relates to this. RolandR (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPSOURCES says: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." There are an extremely limited number of facts for which a true tabloid can be used as the sole source. However, there is currently an ongoing discussion here about People and what constitutes a "true tabloid". You might want read the comments there to get a better idea of the debate. --  D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 16:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I stated in the section regarding People: "As the Tabloid (newspaper format) article points out, tabloid format does not [necessarily] equal 'tabloid.' Many valid newspapers use that format." Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have previously opined on the absurd claim that People magazine is a "tabloid." I further tend to abide by prior RS/N and BLP/N discussions on the proposed banning of some specific newspapers and media sources - where such bans have never been approved for the Daily Mail etc. Where such decisions are clear in the past, they ought not be lightly disrupted, IMO. My positions on BLP are, I suggest, quite strong and evident to anyone examining my posts thereon. As I understand it, a huge number of British newspapers are in tabloid or Berliner format rather than broadsheet. Collect (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Collect, 'tabloid' refers to the style of journalism, not the page format... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as shown in his 18:01 reply, Collect knows that. But the editor he's been in dispute with about it (John) doesn't seem to know that. Or that editor is rather ignoring the fact that "tabloid format" doesn't always equal "tabloid." Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted an Editor who excised content he thought was unacceptable because of its tabloidy-like source. He re-reverted me and said he did it "in an admin capacity" and I should go find better sources for the article (putting the burden on me). I thought it was B-R-D, not B-R-R-D. It's the person who has been reverted who is tasked with discussing the validity of their edit. At least that's how I thought it was supposed to work. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to that? I don't think reverting good faith edits about disputed sourcing is "an admin capacity" thing for admins to do. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 05:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

People throw that word around and have no idea what it means. I've seen the Village Voice frequently referred to as a tabloid and thus ineligible to use as a source, until I remind editors that it has three Pulitzers. Gamaliel ( talk ) 05:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It all depends upon what is being sourced, and how People came about that information.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Langan
Christopher Langan An editor has inserted some speculative and contentious material into the article and talk page. I have reverted the article (again) and was hoping that someone could come in and post a notice that the article is being monitored, as well as encourage sensitivity and adherence to Wikipedia's policies regarding living persons. NightSky (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * NightSky, you might want to go to RPP and make your argument that the page should be protected. There should be evidence that it is the target of vandalism. If this is a content dispute between two Editors, you should talk it out on the Talk Page. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need for PP it's just a content dispute between two editors about some off topic content. I did some clean up there and gave my 2 cents on the talk page to break the deadlock. It's also on my watchlist (if I and when I check my watchlist).--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Harry Mattison
Dear Wikipedia,
 * I'm writing in reference to Harry Mattison. In about 2009, I created a Wiki page for my husband, Harry Mattison, as a surprize. He is an American photographer, winner of the Robert Capa Gold Medal, who worked as a war photographer for nearly twenty years. I was not aware of the rule that a person close to the subject shouldn't be involved in the creation of such a page. Soon after a warning notice was put up about "conflict of interest." The page was minimal then, but I stopped immediately. But I noticed that others began working on the page. I refrained from further input. People said that you would eventually edit the page and take care of problems. My husband is embarrassed about the warning having to do with "conflict of interest." He has no other problems with the page. I apologize for being the one to start it, in ignorance of the rules.

Please help? Thank you in advance, Carolyn Forche

Carolyn Forche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.150.236 (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose removal of COI element of issues tag. There have now been 28 contributors to this article, assume 27 have no COI. Editor who originally placed the issues tag in 2009 appears to be offline, ask a more experienced editor reassess whether is needed at all. Dwpaul (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the four year old tag. It doesn't seem warranted any longer. If an even more experienced Editor disagrees with me, revert with an edit summary of what additional clean-up is required. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 14:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

✅ Dwpaul (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Brandon LaFell
Just read the page. A jokester has been at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.165.45 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 22 September 2013‎
 * I have reverted the edits. GB fan 21:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've left a warning on the IP's talk page. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

✅ Dwpaul (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Danica Novgorodoff
Article reads as though it has been sourced from various writer bios on websites, book jackets, etc. Neutrality? also, relevancy? not convinced this needs its own wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.206.13 (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know, looks to be a pretty decent Start-class article to me. If an editor doesn't think so, an editor can nominate for deletion via the procedure outlined at Articles for deletion. Dwpaul (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really a WP:BLP issue, no mistreatment of the subject is suggested. Possibly to be considered at WP:AFD, but I will mark this section done.

✅ Dwpaul (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Samantha Lewthwaite
Samantha Lewthwaite wife of one of the London Tube bombers is rumoured to have been involved in the recent Kenya massacre. These rumours reported in the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror seem to stem from a short lived twitter account, and "Unconfirmed sources claimed that 29-year-old Lewthwaite may" The BBC article even has someone claiming to represent the terrorists denying any western involvement. I have removed the rumours three times now.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see also a new article has been created for her.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The current revision seems to me to present information on the speculation appropriately, with RS cited both pro and con. Are you proposing that some kind of protection is needed? Dwpaul (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC) (not an admin)
 * By "new article" I assume you are referring to the new dab entry at White widow. Dwpaul (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By new article I meant that the Samantha Lewthwaite article. The original edits I saw were to Germaine Lendsay which were based upon the Daily Mail's take on a twitter feed, which did not have the con part of it. Her links to the recent incident are very tenacious, but seem to be covered by a lot more sources.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. Since the heading here was Samantha Lewthwaite I assumed that was the page where the activity was occurring. Since this is currently (just in the last 24 hours) a very hot topic, with lots of fact-finding and (seemingly mostly constructive) page editing underway, one might give it a little time to settle.  I wonder though if the page(s) could use a Template:Current related tag to indicate that this is occurring. (Though that might tend to add weight to the rumors.) Dwpaul (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Or better still Template:Controversial, which inserts this text:
 * The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
 * (Intended to be added to the Talk page, not to the article itself.) Dwpaul (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Adele
I'm involved in an edit war regarding the insertion of 'tabloids' (The Sun and Daily Mail) which is getting seriously out of hand. Can someone else remove these non-RS sources from the article, I think I've done it seven times already. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 01:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not notified on my talk page about this, as Wikipedia suggests.
 * I was personally attacked at least twice by the above editor.
 * I followed the BRD cycle, I replied to them on my talk page, on the article's talk page, and on their talk page. There has been zero response or collaboration so far, only a tendentious edit war and a string of name calling and threats.
 * My response in a nutshell: most local newspapers in the UK are in tabloid format, which doesn't make them tabloids. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm wrong, but this looks more like an issue of WP:RS than WP:BLP. The disputed citations are merely reporting a fact of certain awards being won by the subject, not something that would be inappropriate under BLP policy.  If you're objecting to the inclusion of any link to those sources, that would be a matter concerning the reliability of those sources (or other reasons to deem them unsuitable). Have you taken this to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Dwpaul (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Hearfour has a history of this sort of nonsense, there's virtually no reasoning with them. The gutter-press sources were being used to support all kinds of personal information not just the awards. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 01:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet another personal attack. I'm not the one who's repeatedly insulting and threatening while refusing to engage in discussion that was initiated on three different platforms. Dwpaul has a point here – take this to the RS board and have them dismissed once and for all (if you're so concerned). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I initiated the "discussion" on your talk page after your first edit, and have responded both on my page and in edit summaries. You seem to be claiming that Daily Mail and The Sun are only tabloid in format. You are wrong. You have been told you are wrong. Please stop now. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears to me this has already been dealt with at WP:RS/Noticeboard/Archive 151 (and others). Has something changed since this was addressed there? Dwpaul (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Dwpaul (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I was completely unaware of that discussion despite being the cause of it. I would most certainly have commented in the strongest terms. It should be blindingly obvious that The Mail is unsuitable for a reference for any article, except in extraordinary cases. Many editors (including Jimbo) have expressed similarly strong opinions regarding The Mail. I've seen far more opinions against it than were expressed in that RS discussion, which can in no way be considered a consensus. (Here's a recent illustrative example: Compare the Mail's reporting with the Telegraph's). The Sun is obviously not a suitable source. It's high time this issue was sorted out properly with a clearly worded policy. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be a blocking offense to use the Daily Mail - and similar sources - to add negative information to BLPs. It's really really really bad...The Daily Mail is not a valid encyclopedic source in most cases. (There are a few rare exceptions, but even those should be subjected to the strictest possible scrutiny.) In particular, relying on a single tabloid source of known low quality to post outrageous accusations of salacious personal details of people's lives is wrong, wrong for Wikipedia, a violation of BLP policy, and not something that anyone should accept cavalierly. It is easy to solve this., 10 May 2011

Text reinserted by Hearfourmewisque:


 * In May 2011, Adele caused some minor controversy with critical statements about high taxes.

These sort of political statements sourced to contentious tabloids are exactly the sort of thing that needs to be avoided removed. Anyway, the argument that The Mail is okay for some things is misleading, they exaggerate and flat out lie regularly. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, and here for a minute I thought Jimbo was participating in our thread.
 * However, it looks to me like there was consensus at the link I mentioned above that Daily Mail (for example) was RS for some information, and for others it should be considered on a case-by-case basis, not blanket-removed. I sense too that Jimbo's comment needs to have been read in context (whatever it was).  Unless Hearfour was posting "outrageous accusations of salacious personal details of people's lives" sourced to DM (in which case it should be easy to challenge on BLP policy, regardless of the source), I would suggest reviewing the rest of the discussion of these two sources at WP:RS/N and if need be opening a new discussion there. Dwpaul (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially if you're looking for something to be "sorted out properly with a clearly worded policy" about sources, versus BLP which is what we're about here. Dwpaul (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There was barely any participation in that discussion. Read some of the many other comments that I linked to. Consensus site wide is against the Daily Mail. The information in the Adele article about her opinions regarding taxes could be considered contentious, as could the price of her house. It was correct to remove the tabloids. The Mail is a particularly egregious offender with regards to accuracy. Tabloids should not be used in BLPs except in special circumstances (and this is not such a case). It's that simple. As I have been doing for several months, I will continue to remove tabloids wherever I see them on Wikipedia. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the July 2013 consensus at WP:RS/N, you should probably revive the discussion there. Moving it here is probably not going to get a different or better result. But I've already been too wordy here, and want to save room for other (probably better-informed) editors' opinions on this issue. Dwpaul (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How many editors spoke for The Mail there? Five or six? Many, many more here would totally disagree. So, a small bunch of editors (seemingly with no concept of a what makes a reliable publication) can settle such an important policy like that, with disregard for the numerous times this has been discussed before (..with comments like: "The Daily Mail is not a reliable newspaper. It's a fascist and populist journal and encyclopaedic resources shouldn't use Daily Mail articles as their source.." or "I support the withdrawal of any and all support for the Daily Mail as a reliable source...Pathological liars. Any publication can get things wrong occasionally, but all the evidence suggests that the Mail just doesn't care. Print what people want to hear, and ignore reality...") I'm outta here. Twelve years and still this place can't decide whether The Mail is suitable for BLPs. What an utter joke. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that I didn't say the matter was settled. I said that IMHO the matter would be more likely settled at WP:RS/N, which seems to have taken a stab at it previously, than here, if you were to bring it up for discussion there. Dwpaul (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hillbilyholiday, if you're "outta here" because Wikipedia is "an utter joke" to you then leave this matter to those who are not entirely selfish in their pursuit of agenda against sources they personally dislike. That... or start embracing the idea of discussion/consensus. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant outta this thread. I can't leave Wikipedia—utter joke though it is—not when there's my 'agenda' to pursue (and bills to pay!) -- Hillbillyholiday talk 11:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also see this current discussion at WP:RS/N, which seems relevant. Dwpaul (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice thread, ... everyone is against Hillbilly (who keeps coming up with lists from the top of their head as if that were sourced from somewhere...) on that one as well. Coincidence? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not meaning to seem to be lecturing anyone, esp. editors who (I think) have a much longer tenure and are more accomplished than me, but I would offer a reminder of the principle discussed at Assume good faith. Dwpaul (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)