Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WP:BLP/N
WP:BLPN
WP:BOLPN
Archives

This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing Biographies of living people policy issues which require outside intervention. These may include disputes with tendentious editors and cases where outside persons are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time.

It is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.

For general content disputes regarding biographical articles consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies.

All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to assist fellow editors regarding the reports below.

Please make your comments as concise as possible. Fellow editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.

Please familiarize yourself with the Biographies of living people policy before reporting issues here.

Please note that edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.

See also:

  • Please add new incident reports at the BOTTOM of this page.
  • Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • IMPORTANT - do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Please link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.
To report a possible BLP violation
  • Please make sure that your report really belongs here. Common vandalism should not be reported here; instead, revert it yourself and warn the user; if it recurs, report it at WP:AIV. If an article is being persistently vandalized, request page protection.
  • Create a new section with the article name
    ==Article name==
  • Describe the dispute using {{La}} and {{Userlinks}} templates in the following format:
    * {{La|article name}} - brief explanation // ~~~~   and/or
    * {{Userlinks|username}} - brief explanation // ~~~~
  • Add new entries at the bottom of the page.
To close an incident
  • Use {{subst:Blpt|[[article name]]|RESOLUTION|~~~~~}} and {{subst:Blpb}} to close an incident that has been completely resolved and no longer requires outside intervention.
  • Routine archival is automated, but any issue that has not been edited for 15 days may be copied to the appropriate archive page.

Contents

[edit] Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns

The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons.

[edit] WP:BLP When is a daily newspaper considered an UNreliable source?

A wikipedia administrator deleted a reference to certain information in a BLP of a well-known public official which was sourced from a daily newspaper, and then picked up by some other media outlets. His reason for deletion was that (1) he claimed WP:BLP, (2) the information might harm the political prospects of the individual, (3) it was only reported by one newspaper doing investigative research, (4) that particular newspaper made a minor fact-checking error in the article on a point not related to the individual, (5) that particular newspaper was not a national newspaper. There seems to be no other information on wikipedia which suggests that this particular newspaper is unreliable or consistently bad on fact checking. General question: When is a daily newspaper considered an unreliable source? For example, is size of circulation a determiner? Followup question 1: Does an error somewhere in a newspaper article invalidate the entire article as a reliable source? Followup question 2: If wikipedia had existed during the Nixon presidency, would it have been fair to report that the Washington Post claimed certain things about events surrounding the Nixon reelection campaign that would have hurt Nixon, even though that newspaper was the sole source of the claims due to their exclusive (Deep Throat) source? ((unsigned))

Deep Throat was not a RS. The WaPo abdicated editorial oversight over Woodward/Bernstein and is not a RS for the assertion that Deep Throat said anything W/B asserted DT said. But NYT, Boston Herald, etc. are RS that WaPo made the assertions. And Nixon was a public figure. So BLP in this case is spelled CYA, and Wikipedia's would have been covered. Andyvphil (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the specific article, the nature of the article (op-ed, feature, news, etc), the author, the subject, and the claims being made. The question is hard to answer in the abstract. Wikidemo (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Using "reliable" sources is just the beginning for a BLP. NPOV says - "A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias". In BLPs, it is always better to play it safe.Momento (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
To the original poster : be careful that you do not miss the forest for the trees here. Even if you can establish a particular newspaper as a reliable source, that does not necessarily give you free license to include derogatory information in the biography of a living person. You should include a link to the material in question if you sincerely want an objective evaluation of the particular situation. If an administrator removed the material, it probably is inappropriate. WP:BLP states, in part -
"Presumption in favor of privacy
Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
Basic human dignity
Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
I hope this helps! Cleo123 (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP and primary sources published in secondary sources

This aspect of BLP seems to be causing confusion, specifically Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.
Here's the general situation; Imagine the subject is a lawyer/judge/litigant/ or in some way owes their notability to actions in a court of law which generates primary sources as a nature of its function. The secondary source, a newspaper, describes in broad strokes information gleaned from court transcripts because it is so detailed that discussing specifics would take too much space for a newspaper article.

Some believe that mentioning anything in a primary source such as a court record, which is not discussed in the newspaper article, would be a violation of WP:BLP regardless of its applicability to the subject's notability. If this is true then primary sources should never be linked since they will by their very nature discuss specifics/info not mentioned in the secondary source.

Others think that info from a primary source which goes into greater detail than the secondary source is ok so long as it doesn't try to change the POV expressed of the secondary AND directly relates to the subject's notability. I'm closer to this opinion since I agree that while all primary sources may not be acceptable for BLP references, certainly court documents related to notability should be because they are both reliable and verifiable. Anynobody 07:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I (cautiously) agree. The great danger with primary sources is that by the nature they tend to require synthesis to use in an article. To use your example, that of a court record, I could see using a court document that shows a person was convicted of a crime as proof that they were convicted, and received a certain sentence. I imagine that this generally would not offend BLP provided the matter received appropriate weight within an article. Of greater concern would be matters that were testified to in a hearing, or alleged in court papers. Even if one side or the other wins the case, is that proof the a particular claim is true? Or was the other evidence so convincing that the prevailing side won in spite of the claim? Often the court won't tell you. Use of the documents in that type of case, I think, is problematic. Xymmax (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely they are sources to be used with caution, for the exact reason you pointed out, indeed synthesis and even all out original research could be easily introduced. I see the use of court records as being suitable to do essentially neutral things like;

  • Documenting each side's arguments without drawing conclusions,
  • Elaborate when a secondary source is vague in referencing aspects of a case, for example imagine a reporter citing how a lack of time would prevent person x from committing crime y without further elaboration. In this hypothetical lets say the court record shows x being in another country at the time. I'd imagine our text to read something like, "A report by Paper Z cited Person X's lack of time to commit the crime,[1] as court records show him/her being out of the country."[2] Anynobody 07:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
With no secondary source having that as the reason for the statement, it sure looks like OR to me. Which I'm ok with, since I think the real problem is that you need to recognize a limit on the application of OR when it gets seriously in the way of what WP:NOTOR calls the "responsibility to present an accurate and factual overview of the topic addressed in the article". Suppose your text read "A report by Paper Z cited Person X's lack of time to commit the crime, stating that court records show him as being out of the country[1]", but examination of the court records show this statement to simply be false, not as a matter of what WP:BLP calls "a conjectural interpretation of a source" but as a simple black-and-white fact, the court records showing X entered the country the day before and left it the day after the crime. And further suppose that no RS can be found to contradict Paper Z, just, maybe, several quoting Paper Z. Do you suppress mention of Paper Z's influential but erroneous assertion? Do you quote it, suppressing mention of the fact that it's wrong? Do you quote it, but supply a caveat supplying the contrary evidence and expressing puzzlement, generalizing what WP:NOTOR suggests only in the context of "expert material"? (This is not a pure hypothetical -- I've recently had occasion to do the last.) Andyvphil (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Can BLP apply to a group? i.e., a court ruled that a newspaper article was "prima facie libelous and defamatory" and awarded damages to a group for libel. Now, a user keeps referring to the "sexual abuse" case when really it was a case of libel in favor of the group (and actually, the case he cites was a higher court case on a procedural/jurisdictional question, i.e., can an individual sue for libel if their group was defamed, or does defamation apply only to individuals?). Given that a court already ruled these allegations libelous, it seems that it also would be libelous to re-post the same information on Wiki? Advice would be appreciated.Renee (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I found the answer to my own question. Yes, the court agreed that a member of a group could be libeled if the group was libeled. Here is the summary judgement where the judge denied the appeal (the appeal said only an individual can be libeled, not a group, the judge denied that), specifically, "Prima facie offence under section 307 I.P.C. is appearing against the accused applicant [the Pioneer newspaper]. It is not a case where charge sheet may be quashed." Here is the full ruling where the judge states the newspaper article and allegations are "prima facie libelous and defamatory." (page 4, #5) Thanks. Renee (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP subject ambiguity

Not quite sure where's best to post this, but it could apply to any BLP subject and may benefit from wider awareness.

We might routinely get problems whereby some "John Smith" tells us that the article "John Smith" points to a mass murderer, or other person that makes them look bad. In such cases please be aware of Template:AmbiguousBio, which can be placed at the top of a BLP article and looks like this:

This article is about John Smith , an officer at Enron . Other individuals may exist with the same or similar name as this.


The template takes a name, a brief description of the article subject, and an (optional) disambiguation page for others with similar names if such a page exists. For an example see Russell Bishop (sex offender). FT2 (Talk | email) 19:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That format of template for non fixable problems is not acceptable. IF you really need something write it in hatnotes format.Geni 10:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this could be placed on talk pages but never in the mainspace.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this is a pretty neat idea. I have converted it to a hatnote so it could be a bit more "in sync" with other disambiguation templates. ViperSnake151 01:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Disputed biographies of living persons

→ In re {{BLPC}} template and WP:BLPC

I created this page as a simple category to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Watch it fill up. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully it clears even faster. :) - Denny 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Very good idea. Nice one. -- ChrisO 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Update on {{BLPC}}

From template page: "Note - this used to use Category:BLP Check, but now shares {{blpdispute}}'s category of Category:Disputed biographies of living persons."   [ Update added here by Athaenara ✉ at 02:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC) ]

Further update

The template {{BLPC}} itself now redirects to {{blpdispute}}, and the category is now empty and no longer used. I've nominated it for deletion. --Darkwind (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes to BLPs

A link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people has been added to the RecentChanges page under the "Utilities" row, titled BLP. This can facilitate the finding of vandalism to biographies of living persons to avoid a "Sinbad (actor)-type" incident happening in the future. Cross-posted to WP:VPN, WP:AN, WT:BLP, #wikipedia, and #wikipedia-en. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced BLPs

There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{unreferenced}} tag. This is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--Docg 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Just looking through a few of them, they have the unreferenced tag at the top but with no indication in the text what the problematic unreferenced material is. It would be good if people could be encouraged not to use the general unreferenced tag, but to add the fact/citation-needed tag to the contentious issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--Docg 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Aye, and originally the list was going to include {{fact}}-transcluders AND {{unreferenced}}-transcluders but the latter is a bigger priority, so let's do that first. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For now, I have completed my search. The result: 17 lists of articles (16 of which contain around 1000 articles) on living people that contain {{unreferenced}}, {{unreferencedsect}}, {{more sources}}, or {{fact}}. Over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Let's get working. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless the policy has morphed again, an {{unreferenced}} BLP that contains no controversial statement is not a violation; many of these probably qualify. {{fact}} is probably more serious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NNDB Notable Names Database

Is the National Names Database a reliable source? The Talk:NNDB page discussion leans against using it. One editor mentions that Jimbo is very against it, especially as a primary source. It seems to be used quite frequently on biographies. I've challenged it on the Paul Wolfowitz page, but would appreciate more input from others. Notmyrealname 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a reliable source for any sort of controversial or disputed information. FCYTravis 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We do not know who the authors of the NNDB are, and thus we have no way of knowing how credible or trustworthy the information is. What we do know is that many of the articles (c.f. the NNDB article on Michael Jackson) are written from a clearly-biased perspective with the intent of generating maximum lulz. Our biographies of living persons policy demands the absolute strictest standards of sourcing and neutrality when we maintain a biography of a living person, and further requires that we use great caution in sourcing any claim which may be controversial, derogatory or disputed. Citing NNDB for something like a birthplace is one thing, citing it for a claim that someone was arrested for <insert scandalous crime here> is entirely another. Even then, it shouldn't be cited unless it's absolutely the last resort - and if it is, we probably shouldn't have an article on the subject anyway. FCYTravis 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's the quote from Jimbo Wales-Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Notmyrealname 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

NNDB is definitely an unreliable source, especially when it's about sexual orientation, risk factors and trivia. As for the newspapers, their reliability is often questionable. By principle, the tabloids must be considered most unreliable sources... Bachibz, 04 August 2007

The NNDB contains reams of errors and misclassifications (calling all world leaders "heads of state", for instance, or calling all cardiac deaths "heart failure" - that one's inexcusably stupid). There's no way to correct the errors (most corrections end up thrown out from what I can see) and the database owners seem to care more about sensationalism than fact. For some years they reported the Catherine the Great horse story as if it were gospel truth. If the NNDB said the sun rose in the east, I'd verify first. Entertaining but wholly unreliable. --NellieBly (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Virtual Library

There seems to be a similar problem as above with the Jewish Virtual Library, especially as a source for biographical information. Sourcing seems to be very vague and often cites wikipedia itself. A few examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. As with the NNDB, if a source is determined to be unreliable, shouldn't it be prohibited from being listed in the references section as well? It seems that this might be used as a way to sneak in information that otherwise wouldn't make it into the wiki article. (I've tried to raise this issue on the Talk:Jewish Virtual Library page and the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources pages as well but this seems to be a particular problem for biographical info).Notmyrealname 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would treat it as a convenience source, with great care taken about POV. The sponsorship is by "The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share." The material posted there is only as authoritative as the source or poster may be authoritative--it always gives the source, but only sometimes the exact link. Looking at their index [5] of biographies, the individual ones link to a variety of useful sources of varying reliability. It obviously cannot be used to prove anything contentious--but since it usually omits negative information, little contentious is likely to be found.DGG 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, one concern is that it's a back-door way of implying a person's religion when there isn't a proper way to do it that complies with WP:BLP. It's extremely rare for them to site any of their sources with specificity (I haven't seen any cases of it other than "Republican Jewish Committee" or "Wikipedia"), so there's no easy way to fact check them. I don't see how this resolves any of the concerns that Jimmy Wales raises above about the NNDB. Notmyrealname 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] f1fanatic

This site is being used as a reference on a number of Formula 1 biographies. It appears to be fan-run and self-published site, without the fact-checking and editorial oversight WP:RS requires, and as such may not meet standards outlined in WP:BLP#Sources. Most, if not all, of the links were added by the site's owner(s) and/or author(s), which raises additional WP:COI issues. The site has other problems, for instance displaying images with no copyright info (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wallpapers/) and linking to copyvio Youtube clips (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/06/18/100-greatest-f1-videos-part-i/). There has been some prior talk page discussion about the link's appropriateness (f1fanatic.co.uk as a reference, External link - F1F biography). --Muchness 10:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WhosDatedWho.com

Not a lot of links so far, but watch for this site to be used as a reference supporting celebrity relationships. I've started searching for reliable-source verification for the information (some of it is no doubt accurate) and removing the link and any relationships that can't be reliably verified elsewhere. From the editorial policy of the site:

“ Information contained on the WhosDatedWho.com website listed has not been independently verified by WhosDatedWho.com. WhosDatedWho.com does not and can not review all materials posted to the WhosDatedWho.com Web Site by users, and WhosDatedWho.com is not responsible for any such materials posted by users. ”

--Risker 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a representative of this site and appreciate that wikipedia needs accurate sources for its information. I acknowledge your concerns and will ensure these are taken into account in our future site update. We are working to improve the accuracy of the information posted on our site and are introducing a verification mechanism in the near future. We recently gave editors the ability to post links to sources for every relationship published on the site. I would also like to state that like wikipedia, all of our content is edited by editors, with our senior editors having ultimate control over what is published.

--Aamair (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • No matter how reliable the information on the WhosDatedWho.com website is supposedly made, it doesn't change the fact that the website is a tertiary source, like Wikipedia. This means it definately can't be used to assert notability, and will probably never be reliable enough to cite content either. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If we still have a representative of the site watching this, is there any way its domain name can be changed to WhosDatedWhom.com? For the impressionable kids out there? :) MastCell Talk 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's true that WDW can't be used as a source itself, but it might be used to find sources that can be included. —Ashley Y 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself

  • Edit warring, protection, unprotection, non-consensus changes, edit warring, protection by administrator involved in previously editing this project page. For contexts of problems affecting the protected current version of this section of the project policy page, please see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (and archives). Thank you. --NYScholar 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) [strike out in response to reply below. --NYScholar 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)]
    • As the protecting admin, I'll leave a quick note regarding the part about "protection by administrator involved in previously editing this project page". First, there are probably relatively few admins who haven't edited a policy page, including WP:BLP. Second, although the page is on my watchlist, I have for the last month or so stayed away from the constant disputes that seem to plague it. My last edit, and the only one affected by the dispute which led to this page protection, was made 10 days ago (on August 18). It consisted solely of a minor rewording and did not constitute a change in meaning. As far as the two issues currently under dispute ... I don't feel strongly about either of them. Third, the version I protected, inevitably The Wrong Version, was the one that happened to be there when I noticed the escalating (both in the nature of comments and frequency of reverts) edit-warring. — Black Falcon (Talk) 00:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I appreciate the reply here. The problems do not seem, however, to be the kind that further discussion is going to change. Discussion of the same problems has been ongoing for over three months. I think some degree of non-editorial intervention may be necessary. So many of us commenting on the policy statement have strong views about it that it is hard to reach what Wikipedia calls "consensus" and changes to the page have not, in my own and some others' views, improved it, so that the currently-protected version does not state what it used to (pre-August 12) even though there is clear disagreement about some phrases that have been deleted from the current version. Many editors (including several administrators) have expressed the view that the phrases deleted should remain. --NYScholar 00:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Porn actors' birth names

The last several days worth of edits at Lukas Ridgeston, Tim Hamilton (porn star), and the March 14 entry for Johan Paulik raise serious BLP issues. Would someone review them please? David in DC (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I will address them. When an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated it may be placed on the article. Addresses and phone numbers should not be placed on the article. Repeated removal of well sourced and widely disseminated names should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. John celona (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
What about the BLP policy of presumption in the favor of privacy, especially when it doesn't help the WP project in any way. BLP policy states that respecting the basic human dignity of the subject is essential, and other editors have noted that "outing" these people's birth names (it's ok to use their public stage name) assists in stalking and potential danger to the subjects. There is no real benefit and there is real potential for harm. This is straight from BLP Policy: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated OR HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED **which is the case for these subjects**, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context" --Jkp212 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This surely must not be the first time such matters have been discussed on Wikipedia. Does anyone have pointers to previous threads? I could imagine making the answer depend on whether a large, mainstream publication had revealed the persons' real name. If the real name has already appeared in the New York Times or Newsweek then keeping it out of the article is probably not worth the effort, and has little privacy value. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As you well know the phrase OR HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED which you so helpfully capitalise is immediately followed by AS IN CERTAIN COURT CASES. Since there are no court cases and the actors names are VERY widely disseminated they belong in the article. They are actors which is as much not a "non-public" occupation as can be imagined. John celona (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The names have not been mentioned in any large, mainstream publication and are NOT widely disseminated. Widely is certainly more than 5 obscure gay porn blog sources for Tim Hamilton (the interview in question published twice!) or one source only for Lukas Ridgeston plus about 14 gay porn listings with no real value at all. For Lukas Ridgeston the name has been intentionally disclosed in the review of that gay magazine. This has been done against the expressed wish of the actor and production company Bel Ami. AS IN CERTAIN COURT CASES is NOT a concluding enumeration but an example. Even with English not being my native language I can read the difference. So no need for a court case here either. There is no real benefit in publishing the names and no significant loss of context in not doing so. On the contrary revealing the names in this or in any future case violates the WP principles mentioned by Jkp212. Putting them back in repeatedly should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. Just as John celona said "an actor's real name ... may be placed on the article". But it does not have to be placed, which is in accordance with the BLP policy of presumption in the favor of privacy. (Jamesbeat (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"As in certain court cases" is one example of where a name has been intentionally concealed. Actors such as these who choose to have stages names are also intentionally concealing their birth name, which they have every right to do. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Brandy Alexandre page is the model. Please look at the code. If you hit "edit this page", the first thing you see at the top is code from Jimmy Wales asking that her birth name not be revealed. Need a better authority than that? David in DC (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say User:EdJohnston makes a good point. Where is the prior discussion on this? I don't see any for Brandy Alexandre, even on the talk page. Was it archived? What about for Hamilton or Ridgeston or any of the others? Viewing the prior consensus on the subject would be most helpful in this discussion. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
What it actually says is "As a courtesy while we discuss the issues surrounding this article". In other words-temporary. Plus, what wikipedia regulation says Luke Ford is not a reliable source. He is on dozens of other pages. provide the source please. as you have been told on many other issues: this is Wiki-pedia not David-pedia. John celona (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
For everything that needs saying, read the archive here: It sets forth the views of Anon E. Mouse, Jimbo, and SavvyCat (Ms. Alexandre) as fully as necessary. About outing porn actor's names AND about the reliability of Luke Ford as a source. David in DC (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I know that a number of the participants in WP:P* (myself included) routinely pull out uncited names from porn star articles on simple WP:BLP issues... what if the name's wrong? And there are other stars besides Brandy who have had their names pulled from the article at the star's own request... Sasha Grey is one I remember offhand. Beyond that, the principles that John Celona mentions above ("an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated") apply, and no, IMDB is not a reliable source for the name! Now if we can only get all the various editions to follow that last point; I know of one porn star complaining about a foreign language Wiki that has their real name on it with IMDB as a "source", and her parents were getting hassled on it as a result of it (it's Katja Kassin & the German version)... unfortunately the Wiki in question doesn't seem to be responding to her complaints. Tabercil (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Some insight into User:John celona's attitude towards privacy and harm reduction may be gleaned from a Deletion Review a year ago, specifically this comment, this comment and this comment. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Outing people is bad. I dealt with porn star names (e.g. Tawnee Stone, Jordan Capri) way back in the dark ages before BLP even existed and even then we all agreed that Wikipedia should not be the primary venue for locating information such as this. If the mainstream media has published someone's identity, then okay, but we shall not rely on the blog of the guy who claims to have gone to high school with the actress. Nor shall we rely on the name that appears on the obscure trademark filing for the "character" (yes, this seriously came up). If you are going to publish information that may have real world consequences for someone then you ought to have sources that are at least as reliable and as visible as Wikipedia itself before doing so. Dragons flight (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If we change this policy we need to change it universally, or not at all, and have admin deletes of history of reference to birth names. --BenBurch (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This is going to come up repeatedly in the future. In the Brandy Alexandre case, some editors seemed to think that we were just applying the reliable source policy to birth names, and only including those that were reliably attested. But the above discussion tells me that some editors *still* don't want real names included even when published in sources that would be accepted as reliable for other purposes. If this is the case, we should know. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This is really disturbing to me. Someone really needs to explain to User:John celona that Wikipedia isn't just a place that reports every lurid detail about sexually related articles. He's strongly argued for the inclusion of all material related to underage sex crime victims multiple times (as evidenced by CalendarWatcher) and now he's trying to disseminate private details about porn actors because marginally reliable sources (and frankly some unreliable sources) report them. Ugh. No. If he wants to start a wiki of his own that exploits these people he is welcome to do so, but I don't think that kind of attitude is appropriate here. AniMate 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that a name attested by a reliable source should still be suppressed at the request of the subject? We need to know if you are asking for a policy change or not. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would say a policy change is in order. If someone's lone claim to fame is pornography and they want to reclaim some of their privacy, then absolutely we should remove their real name. In fact, I would argue that more often than not, real names shouldn't be used unless they are widely used by the mainstream media. For that to happen, I'm thinking most porn stars would have to have some other claim to fame besides having sex on film. AniMate 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I am in agreement with a policy change. There is no gain to "outing" people like this. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
So let's throw an hypothetical example out to see how this proposed change works... say Savanna Samson comes to us and says "I don't want my real name used in the article". If you look at the article, there is a reference for it which points directly to an article in the New York Times, which is probably one of the more reliable sources out there and also one of the more visible ones (the third highest circulation according to List of newspapers in the United States by circulation). So... do we pull the name or not? Tabercil (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
In that case I would say probably not, though that would ultimately depend on why she wanted her name removed. The argument for removal of real names is that these people use pseudonyms to obscure their identities. While she will always be better known as Savanna Samson, I think it's clear with that interview and her other projects that she has no intention of obfuscating her identity anymore. AniMate 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I lean toward yes. We take her birth name out, but use the NYT article as a source for some other fact, if it backs one. NYT has it's editorial discretion and we have ours. Ours protects the privacy (and safety) of living persons more than theirs does. That's not censorship, it's editing.
I can imagine a case where the answer is no. If Savanna ever kills someone on a porn set, the names are gonna be linked. Or if she testifies before Congress, under her birth name, in support of branding strippers and porn stars' with a Scarlet X. But we ought to set the bar pretty high in favor of omitting birth names. David in DC (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My own personal thinking is probably not to remove the name in this instance. Why? Because of the visibility and reliability of the source of the name, unless it can be shown to be in error, removing the name would be akin to closing the barn door long after the horse has disappeared over the horizon. However, if the source was much thinner, then I can the name being removed. However, we should clearly have a requirement that the real name must be sourced; I know the the guidelines for WP:P* (which perhaps is the work group closest to the subject) are clear as seen here. Tabercil (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because something is verifiable and well sourced, doesn't mean we include it in articles. WP:BLP often trumps reliable sources and verifiability. AniMate 21:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If that's a policy change, what is the limitation on it? Any subject of a biography can ask for their real name to be excluded, no matter how well known it is? EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Is it specifically laid out in policy? No, but there is a presumption in favor of the privacy of marginally notable people. Exact birth dates are routinely removed for the marginally notable (and that is policy), and (generally speaking) porn stars real names aren't very well known. Looking through the links supplied by CalendarWatcher above, you'll see a case where two minors who were victims of sex crimes had the majority of personal information about them removed from the encyclopedia. All of the information about them was ridiculously well sourced to major and undeniably reliable news agencies. Still, the information was removed and the articles redirected (if I'm not mistaken). I think the removal of real names is definitely up for interpretation, but in the case of a porn star with very few or no other accomplishments... I think we should remove without prejudice unless a valid argument can be made to include them. AniMate 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm agreeing that we could follow a rule where such names are sometimes omitted. I just need someone to give the scope of the rule so that we don't need a lengthy discussion every time the subject comes up again. If the existing policy is too vague in this area we could ask for the policy to be made specific. You could even ask for a change in policy that is limited to porn stars, to avoid widening the debate too much. (Comparing to the example given by AniMate, porn stars don't seem to have much in common with minors who are the victims of sex crimes). EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right that there is nothing in common between the two, and I hope I didn't imply that there was. I'm not sure that there is a clear cut line that can be determined other than saying "err on the side of privacy". Savanna Samson, for instance, has clearly made an attempt to market herself to a more mainstream audience outside of porn. The same goes for Jenna Jameson and Jeff Stryker. Tim Hamilton, Johan Paulik, and Lukas Ridgeston don't seem to have any encyclopedic accomplishments outside of pornography. There is no benefit to revealing their real names, and there could in fact be great harm to them in doing so. AniMate 02:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing it back to Paulik, Ridgeston and Hamiliton. It's poor judgment to out any of these three. We need the opposite kind of rule than the one EdJohnston suggests above. We need a rule for when a porn actor's birth name should be included. The presumption should be against inserting these birth names, except in the most extraordinary of circumstance. People act in porn under assumed names for reasons of privacy and safety. We should honor the request for safety and privacy that acting under a stage name clearly requests. David in DC (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that David in DC's idea would leave us with a clear rule to follow. I like AniMate's last comment because I can deduce a rule from it. How about:
  • Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.
This would cause us to include the real names of Jenna Jameson and Jeff Stryker, and omit the names of Lukas Ridgeston, Tim Hamilton (porn star) and Johan Paulik. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well the first clause I have no problems with, and the second one shouldn't be a problem because anything that'll cause them to be mentioned by a reliable source will most likely be for outside of porn. Tabercil (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I like both clauses too, and I personally feel it's essential to include the second part so that there is clarity on that point. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.

This seems to be a popular and rational choice. Are there any objections? If there are, how would they be beneficial to building an encyclopedia? AniMate 07:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "objection" is very simple. If an actor's name is widely disseminated and reliably sourced it should be in the article. If one can google the actor's stage name along with the words "real name", "birth name", etc. and come up with a reliable source on the first page than the proverbial cat has escaped the bag. John celona (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Your "objection" is of course not as simple as you try to tell again and again. It makes a BIG difference if you read a WP article about people in the porn business, which includes the real name, or if you read the same article without the real name and having to do an additional Google search on your own, which most people have no interest in at all except they have some ill intentions. As said above regarding Lukas Ridgeston and Tim Hamilton widely disseminated and reliably sourced are different from what Google is coming up with for both cases. To avoid any future discussions about this IMO the second part of the statement above in italic is very crucial. (Jamesbeat (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC))
It's important for WP to take a stand that, as many of the other editors, have mentioned above, WP should not be the primary vehicle for the spreading of this information unless there is a special reason (like activities outside of porn).. In Celona's example, he mentioned a situation where someone is actively seeking out a birth name of the actor's name (like a stalker); however, most people will come to the WP article not actively seeking out the actor's birth name, and therefore WP becomes the primary vehicle for the spread of this information. In other words, it's more complicated than just being reliably sourced, as Animate points out above. Secondly, without taking a firm stand you open up the door for irresponsible edits, such as this one by Celona [[6]] where the "reliable source" he cited was a porn site. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Widely disseminated? Here is a google search for Tim Hamilton with the "real" name you added to his article. John, you need to understand that we have to edit responsibly. It is something you seem to fight every time someone tells you that information isn't appropriate for the encyclopedia. You fought bitterly for all possible information to be written about two minors who were victims of sex crimes. You really have to start understanding WP:BLP and that when it is applied is not censorship but editors acting responsibly. AniMate 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Both clauses make sense to me. Responsible editorial discretion is not censorship. WP:BLP is a more restrictive policy than many other institutions follow. It's one we should be rightly proud of. We should enforce it against indiscriminate, ill-advised, mean-spirited or careless editors. David in DC (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I've deleted Ridgeston's birth name.David in DC (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely no one can argue Ridgeston's real name is not widely disseminated. I think it is more than absurd to say people with interest in celerities real names are "stalkers" John celona (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a google search with the real name you provided for Ridgeston showing that it is also not widely known. Again, you really need to read WP:BLP because you really don't seem to understand it... or at least you don't want to. AniMate 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is on almost every google hit! John celona (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
21 google hits is a joke when you compare the 78,000 google hits returned for his stage name. If there are only twenty or so places on the web that report his name, then it is not a widely known fact. From WP:BLP When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed... This name is not widely known and it has been intentionally concealed. Let it go. AniMate 22:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I am disengaging from this issue-for now. It is sad that a handfull of pro-censorship editors can twist Wikipedia rules that compel boldness and inclusiveness and make them look like they compel a rather infantile, self-righteous censorship. For the record, for anyone reading this as an archive: There is NO regulation on Wikipedia distinguishing porn stars from any other actor or celebrity. If any actor's real name is reputably sourced and widely disseminated it SHOULD be in the article notwithstanding an actor's or a studio's wishes or alleged wishes. If a google search instantly reveals the actors real name through a reputable source the name belongs in the article. Don't be tricked by some sophist making the completely absurd argument that "20 sources isn't enough". Be bold and put the real name in. This is an encyclopedia not a game of "who can censor who" --many editors don't realize that John celona (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah....Celona, I am glad you reach out to those who are "reading this as an archive" -- clearly you will be remembered and looked back as the noble sole who fought hard for the right to "out" the private names of porn stars. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Individual articles

[edit] Frank Marshall Davis‎

I have been removing two paragraphs of speculation that the subject of the article is a "Frank" discussed in Barack Obama's memoir. This may be true and either way is hardly defamatory, but we don't have the standard of proof needed for an encyclopedia. The only proof is the speculation of one writer for the Marxist monthly Political Affairs. Other sources used in the article include blogs and an attack piece from the fringe group Accuracy in Media. My efforts to remove offending material have been repeatedly reverted. Gamaliel (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be handling the edit controversy admirably. For what it's worth, I support your point of view that the blog cited by Flatterworld is not a reliable source and in context should not be used. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
For now, at least the blogs and AIM pieces have been stripped from the article, and the other user seems content to just keep restoring the paragraphs of speculation. Now that he's taken to insulting me on the talk page, I'm probably going to abandon this article and let someone else get involved. Gamaliel (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constant BLP violations at Adam Shapiro

In last few days I've removed a lot of unsourced libelous material and replaced with sourced accurate material. Despite this article having a longtime {blpdispute} tag, User:Wehwalt keeps removing accurate material and making other violations of BLP and now threatens to report me for reverting such material. Not sure how to proceed immediately, though obviously will continue to revert the most obvious issues. Specifically in last few hours since my last edit:

[1] resolved
  • 1 Adding irrelevant (or POV?) stuff like who was left in the headquarters after Shapiro left.
2 Taking out full Shapiro quote which provides context; doing so makes him look bad.
3 Uses "alleges" three times in two sentences when one is enough.
4 completely removed relevant WP:RS reference whose title calls Shapiro "hero". (Unless I insert other material from that article, will put in external links.)
5 removed accurate description of why he left the building (demonstration) and replaced with WP:Original research interpretation of the fact two doctors came in, i.e. "Shapiro was allowed to leave when a doctor took his place," making it look like Shapiro was a hostage.
6 and 2 more edits:Inserts WP:Original research fact (or allegation) from another article that is not mentioned in any articles about this individual, probably for POV purposes.

Carol Moore 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

If you look at Carol's last version [7] before the edits she complains of, you'll note as follows:
Based on what is basically an opinion piece (written, incidently, if you read it, by someone who says Israelis fired on him and his wife!), Carol has stated:"However, during the 2002 Israeli invasion the ISM's work became chiefly humanitarian because the United Nations and the Red Cross would not operate ambulances without the cooperation of the Israelis, who were stopping and even firing upon them. Adam, who was living in Ramallah, volunteered with Irish activist Caoimhe Butterly to ride in ambulances. Hearing there were wounded in the headquarters of Yasser Arafat, President of the Palestinian National Authority, they made their way there. Trapped inside by Israeli firing,[1] they remained over night and Shapiro had breakfast with Arafat.[2] Huwaida organized a demonstration and Israelis allowed Shapiro to leave.[1]" This states as facts what actually comes from Shapiro's and his wife's statements, such as the firing on ambulances, the work becoming "chiefly humanitarian" and so forth. I've made it clear that it is Shapiro's POV (something I have worked to do throughout, which appears to draw Carol Moore's ire, as in her "allege" comments) and, while leaving in the "firing on ambulances", have supplied information from another article contemporaneous to the puff piece on Shapiro, which explains why the Israelis were stopping ambulances. Carol Moore apparently just wants it to look like the Israelis are crazy, stopping and firing on ambulances for no apparent reason. Before I noted the presence of this complaint, I was going to propose to her that we delete both the claim of firing on ambulances and the weapon found in ambulance cite. That they stop ambulances is not subject to dispute, and I am OK with leaving that in. I'd like a better cite though, really that piece from the Guardian should go as not a WP:RS as a commentary.
Her complaint regarding the "hero" article is unfounded, that is a commentary and not a RS. It is also "reprinted" on a website which raises copyright concerns.
Her complaint regarding the doctor: Well, that is what the article says! It isn't even clear whether Carol thinks that means he was an Israeli hostage or a Palestinian hostage! I'm not quite clear on how that qualifies as a "libel" or other BLP concern!
Her complaint regarding the removal of the quote: The quote simply stated that Shapiro was responding to a Palestinian article advocating violence. I inserted another quote from the same source which I felt was more responsive and less apologetic. If she feels some of the information from the quote she liked needs to be in the article, suggest she propose a compromise.
I did not threaten to report anyone. I simply asked that [8] she be more careful about 3RR.
Perhaps most notably, this diff [9] removing, not seeking a cite or noting citation needed, but removing, Shapiro's Kristallnacht comments from the article, make it very clear that Carol Moore is interested, not in presenting all the info out there on Shapiro in a dispassionate npov manner, but in writing a pov puff piece herself, and to that end, is pulling out all the stops by calling in the BLP patrol. She should read this text from WP:NPOV, which is mentioned uppage right now: "A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias". The only offer for compromise which she has set forth, I readily agreed to.[10] I suggest that she be told to go back to the article and to work with other editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You threatened to get ME in trouble for WP:3rr without bothering to ask for discussion, forcing me to come here. Yet WP:BLP clearly states: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy. Plus again there is a {blpdispute} tag.
  • I don't have a problem with correcting errors, adding allege where appropriate (as opposed to 3 times in two sentences) or finding other articles that may be less based on the statements of participants. (That's all I found in my first searches.) And I did not challenge properly sourced info that you added in last 24 hours.
  • I have a problem with inserting clearly inaccurate or WP:OR material which I think several of your edits are and should be removed.
  • Hero article may or may not be WP:RS as source and I'll wait and see if need to use it before going to that noticeboard. But fine as external link.
  • The original Kristallnacht comment was not sourced at all and would be libelous if not true. I didn't know if it was true or not so deleted per {blpdispute} tag.
  • If people don't respond here, I'll ask an administrator. These are serious issues under: the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration Carol Moore 15:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I did not threaten to get you in trouble. I asked you to tone it down, as I cited, because I didn't want to get into an edit war. You weren't even going to the article talk page. You were just reverting, using undo on good faith edits. If you feel the number of times "allege" is used is excessive, well then rephrase. As for the Kristallnacht thing, you say you "didn't know if it was true or not". However, in the last version of yours [11] before I edited, it is discussed in Reference 3[12], just underneath (three very short paragraphs intervening) the quotation you pulled out to use in the article. You added that reference to the article. I guess now you'll say you didn't see it. You didn't read the rest of the article. If you did, you're POV pushing by excluding relevant material. If you didn't, you are just looking in sources for what you want and ignoring everything else. Gotcha.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The last paragraph is too confusing to figure out, but I don't have a problem with his quote myself, only what I thought was lack of sourcing. The bottom line is I was following the tag which demanded removal of unsourced material and then when dubious stuff kept popping in and my first contact with you was a "warning" on my talk page, so I came here per WP:BLP policy. If you are willing to discuss on talk, I'm willing. Behind on several things after 30 hour power black out. Carol Moore 03:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I'd spend some time figuring it out, because it goes to what you may need to do so that editors assume good faith on your part. It looks like you deleted material, and then gave a reason for deleting it which wasn't the case, and I was able to prove that was so. That being said, if you feel you are a person who should be working on this article, I will engage with you on talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally I happen to think "Israeli actions regarding the Palestinians" are worse than "Kristallnacht, during which 36 Jews were killed in Nazi Germany and hundreds of Jewish homes, businesses, and synagogues were destroyed." It's 60 years of state violence for purposes of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. So Shapiro merely being "reminded" didn't bother me, only that I didn't find a reference for it in the paragraph where the allegation appeared, here. And I failed to notice it in a later article where it happened to arise. Not a crime. Again in WP:BLP we are supposed to take out unsourced information (or information with broken links that might be fabricated) and that could lead to libel lawsuits vs. wikipedia. I will remove such material when I find it. Carol Moore 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Liz Wilde

Liz Wilde (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I'd appreciate some opinions on this article. Lizwilde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who appears to be the subject the article, continues to edit the article after numerous WP:COI notes on her talk page. Rtphokie (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Numerous is a word I'd love to ban, especially when the number can be counted without taking one's socks off. By my count, four, by the way! All in good fun.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify your comments? Do you not think this editor has been sufficiently warned, do you think WP:COI doesn't apply here or are you just sharing your thoughts on the word "numerous"?--Rtphokie (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just on the word "numerous".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The article is poorly sourced at present. If it doesn't have reliable sources except for three newspaper articles from the 90s, and a short item in Business Wire from 2001. If we can't find more reliable sources, I think an AfD might be considered. The other possibility is to stubbify the article. (I didn't go into the for-pay sources, and I doubt that any books have been written about her). The subject can't go ahead and write an article out of personal knowledge, and then leave it at that. Deletion is a good way to avoid all BLP issues, in the case of an article subject whose notability may be questioned. I am not sure that WP:BIO can be met using the sources that are now in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Can the article be AFD'd while it is fully protected?--Rtphokie (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Wilde is active and in progress. — Athaenara ✉ 09:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genie (feral child) part 2

See previous listing of this issue [13]

  • Background. User:Wjhonson has a personal website webpage devoted to a case of an abused child, Genie. Genie's case is well known in psychology and linguistic circles. On his website Wjhonson reveals Genie's real name based on research that he has done. He initially linked to this website as a source for his edits pn WP. Once this was removed several times he has not attempted to return it recently. A recent article has appeared about her brother that names him.

User:Wjhonson been repeatedly edited this and other articles over the last few months to reveal the name (first name, last name or both) of the subject of this article. [14][15] [16][17] [18]¸[19] and there are more. In this he acts against the clear consensus on the talkpage. To date I count 13 editors who argue that that the name (first name or family name) should not be included, with one undecided, and two arguing for (1 only briefly). Comments from uninvolved editors included:

  • "as I have been speaking at some BLP discussions for a very narrow interpretation of "do no harm"....This is perhaps one of the cases to which the policy most obviously clearly and rightfully applies, and even if we did not have the formal policy it would still seem to me to be indefensible to use the real name" [20] DGG
  • "While I personally find a lot of claims of do-no-harm ridiculous when something is easily googlable, this isn't easily googlable. Whether or not the name has been concealed deliberately there is a definite possibility of doing damage if this name is put here." JoshuaZ [21]
  • User:Wjhonson has just recreated a redirect naming the woman[22], that was deleted due to BLP concerns in an RFD discussion in which the deleting adminstrator even redacted the name from the request for deletion discussion[23]
  • He has named the woman again on this edit creating a redirect from the brother's name [24]

I think the time has come for some independent administator attention to this ongoing situation. --Slp1 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is quite easy to find, both in RS and in blogs/flicker albums and the like. I've yet to see anything that asserts that the listing of such prevalent information has any potential harm for the subject beyond what already exists from other sources (ABC news being the most easily findable and obvious). Celarnor Talk to me 22:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not clear what your links attempt to prove: blogs and websites are not reliable sources, and the journal [25] and the highschool topic suggestion [26] do not even mention her name. The ABC article [27] names her mother but not her and ends "In her meticulous research, Weedon learned Genie's real name and, "without too much more investigation" could find her -- but has decided against it. "It wouldn't be fair," she said. "It would be too invasive, and she isn't the same little girl when the stories were written about her. I wouldn't do it -- for her sake and her memory."
As I pointed out before if you don't know her name, the name is very difficult to find. Try Genie and Language [28] or Genie and Abuse [29] and see what you have to wade through to find it.
Try to improve your searching methods. Including quotes around "real name", or using the AND operator in academic databases that still use them, results in much more useful information. Once you have something, it's pretty trivial to find something you're looking for if you know the words ("name") in a digital document. Celarnor Talk to me 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In any case, per privacy of names we need to see that it is widely disseminated, and "when evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.". WP:BLP. It is not widely disseminated in scholarly journals nor in works of recognized experts (and there have been 100s and 100s of books mentioning the case)[30] nor even in the news media. --Slp1 (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP) is crystal clear that we err on the side of privacy with regard to articles on living persons. I haven't seen any case made, much less a compelling one, that including the person's real name materially improves the article. Worse, the subject of the article is in no position to advocate for herself, a remedy envisioned in the BLP policy as an important check on what we do here. One editor seems intent on including the real name, in the article and elsewhere, in the face of our policy and the views of other editors on the article's talk page. This disruptive behavior must stop now. If it doesn't, I believe sanctions are in order.--agr (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I could understand where this might be a problem if the information in question wasn't only a JSTOR search of "Genie" + "real name" , or a search of news articles about the subject away. However, this simply isn't the case; its pretty widely disseminated at this point. By including it, we wouldn't be pushing into light some obscure fact about the subject that was never known until now except by a few select sources. Celarnor Talk to me 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Since we're not revealing unknown, or even little-known, information, there's no BLP case here. Including the real name improves specificity and accuracy, goals for which a reference work should always strive, so there is a clear improvement in including real names when they are already known and available to the public. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
But we would be revealing little known information. Psychology and linguistic students all over the world know her only as Genie. In the last thirty seven years, only 1 book has mentioned her full name, and 2 related newspaper articles have given her last name in the context of relatives of the 100s written. Do you really think this is widely disseminated and well-known? Even if we look at websites (which we cannot possibly use on a BLP anyway), the only way to find the real name (without knowing it first) is to trawl through the many, many websites that don't give the real name with the aim of finding the few that do. Try it. Even Celarnor's suggestion of Genie + "real name" provides this [31] reveals only 3 hits with a partial name in the first 100, none of them reliable sources. In any case, WP:BLP re privacy of names is clear that we need to place greater weight on what scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts have decided to do regarding the name. I am actually a bit confused by Celarnor's comment about JSTOR. Do you realize that no article in listed JSTOR mentions her name at all? That yes, Genie + her last name comes up with some hits, but only because her last name is the same as the name a publishing company that appears in the bibliography? Her name is not a search away in academic texts, academic articles, nor in any Factiva or Lexis Nexis newspaper articles search. It is not widely known. --Slp1 (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I would also point out that cases like this are extremely rare so there is no lack of "specificity and accuracy" in just using the name Genie. Further, the editors working on this article formed a consensus based on the spirit and letter of WP:BLP that the real name is not needed in the article. The one editor in question has not accepted that consensus, but in a classic example of WP:Tendentious editing continues to press for its inclusion and has attempted to get the real name into Wikipedia through other means, such as creating redirects, including it on his user page and adding Genie's non-notable brother's name to a disambig page. I see that elsewhere on this noticeboard there is a discussion of whether to include porn actors' real names in their bios. That we are even considering such a question under BLP suggests that in this case, involving a woman who was a victim of a crime (child abuse), has done nothing to seek publicity, is apparently institutionalized from the crime's effects and is totally unable to protect herself or even express her wishes, the real name should be excluded from Wikipedia. --agr (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, I too am in favor of not revealing her full name in this article. The fact that the real name appears in other online resources, while not irrelevant, is not dispositive IMHO. This poor person is notable mainly as a case study. Her full name adds nothing in the way of specificity to her article - that need is appropriately addressed by her alias, which appears to be entirely sufficient to permit easy identification of the aspect of her life that is notable. I am not certain that we, in general, give sufficient consideration to how drastically inclusion of information on WP will influence search engine results. Inclusion of the name would not simply make it easier to find for those who look for that information on WP, it will make it easier to find for everybody. When, as in this case, the person is essentially WP:BLP1E or in cases of marginal notability, I think much greater caution with this type of personal information is warranted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I too feel the full name should be left out for the reasons mentioned. --Faith (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I am in agreement with the editors (including Slp1, agr, Xymmax, and Faith) who support keeping the name out of the Wikipedia article. — Athaenara ✉ 09:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Make that another convinced by the arguments not include the name, not only for her protection but that of her brother, mentioned in the article (and edit summaries) who is also not a public individual. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the brother's name from the article. --agr (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
And despite the overwhelming consensus not to include the name, User:Wjhonson has reverted agr's edit and inserted the last name again.[32]--Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
And has recreated the redirect [33]--Slp1 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
His persistence in including this material in spite of the opposition of a number of uninvolved editors and administrators who feel it violates BLP is alarming. I see that he has been warned about disruptive editing at the article's talk page. I hope that he'll take note. He has recourse to wider community input, but can't simply push past consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This entire above is erroneous. First my website is not devoted to this case, this case occupies a single page out of hundreds on my site. Secondly I was not the person who added my site as a source (afair), in fact I think I removed it, and someone else added it back again. The reason for including the name is for research purposes. Without knowing the full name is [deleted by agr] you cannot find the case in the relevant newspapers at the time. There were dozens of articles about this case, flung across the country when she was found. These were reported on the newswires and reprinted all over the map. This was not a hushed-up local case by any means. The reportage went on for well over a month on this case, it was quite well-known. BLP does not cover a situation like that, the name was widely disseminated. Whether it was not later-on is not relevant to BLP. Lastly, the fact that I was *not* informed that any of the previous discussions were even taking place is quite extraordinary. It is common courtesy to inform all participants when a discussion is taking place. Wjhonson (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected website to webpage. My apologies for the error in terminology.--Slp1 (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you may have been the first to remove it, but you have added it back numerous times after that despite the overwhelming consensus to leave it out. Second, I did post a notice on the Genie talk board saying that I've added a request at BLP/N after you advised me to take our disagreement here. Whether or not you have one page on your site or multiple pages on your site devoted to Genie is not the point (you yourself have said that your page on Genie is one of the largest you've ever written). The point is that you were the first person to discover her name and add it to the article and you have been the ONLY person pushing this hard to keep her name in the article, while the number of people arguing against you has been constantly growing. You keep saying that our attempts to keep her name out of the article is a form of censorship but that's not what it is. Censorship is the suppression of information with the intention of protecting the public. Keeping her name hidden in no way protects the public. It is to protect HER! That HAS to be more important than our duty to document the world for research purposes. For An Angel (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not a news service. You are certainly free to argue your case, but you are not free to continue to insert this person's real name into Wikipedia against community consensus and BLP policy. I am imposing a 24 hour block. --agr (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Since my earlier participation basically boiled down to a "per above" and may be contributing to this editor's perception that lack of familiarity with BLP is the problem, I'm going to spell out why, based on the policy, I believe that the name should be excluded. BLPs should be "written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy" as "material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends". Under "Presumption in favor of privacy", we're urged to consider the ethical implications of articles, to write conservatively and with respect to basic human dignity. The policy notes that "This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." I am persuaded that including Genie's name, and also that of her brother, has a serious risk of participating in the victimization of these people, by making it much easier to identify them as individuals and encourage public scrutiny. At this moment, this page is fourth on Google's search for the generic term "Genie". In spite of the recent resurgence in interest in the case occasioned by the Frizl case in Austria, it is the only article about Genie to make the first page. It costs the article nothing substantial to exclude this information. I do not believe this is an overwhelmingly clear case of BLP in terms of Genie herself, but I do think it falls comfortably within the imperative to be conservative to remove the name.
Her brother seems to be a different matter. I see you've even added the brother's real name to a disambiguation page (and again today). According to this sole interview, this man is a house painter living a modest life who has only ever granted that one interview. BLP indicates that "Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger." There doesn't seem to be any necessity to include his name in Genie's article, much less on a disambiguation page for his own name, as he is a painter who (as the source says) "has never received a minute of treatment or public attention" and who has "shunned almost any association or documentation of his past".
You have been a Wikipedians for many years longer than I have, and I'm sure you know where to find wider community input when you run up against contrary consensus on an article's talk page. You must realize that persisting in including the information over the repeated objections of a number of contributors (and now uninvolved editors and admins) looks very clearly to be disruptive editing according to the first and third points defining that term. I'm also perplexed by your incorporating those names in your edit summaries given clear, unresolved BLP concerns as you did here and here. It could be perceived as an attempt to to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged from the record. As the policy at Wikipedia:Edit war sets out, efforts to win content disputes through brute force undermine "the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit". BLP concerns particularly require serious consideration, and when enough concerned, informed contributors oppose the inclusion of information under that policy, consensus should be established before the material is restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I had been making my arguments on the article talk page, but since Wjhonson claims there that there isn't overwhelming consensus here[34], I thought I'd add my voice here as well. As a victim of horrific child abuse, the girl's story was reported in newspapers, using her full name, more than thirty years ago. After her father committed suicide, the story of an abused child (there are thousands of them) died out, and would have been forgotten except that psychologists became interested in her as a means of testing theories on whether children could learn their native language after early childhood. These psychologists are the ones who have kept interest in her alive, but they changed her name to Genie to protect her privacy, and they always refer to her as Genie in scholarly articles. Yes, you can dig up the archives of some newspaper from 1970 and find her real name, but you won't know that it's Genie you're reading about. Genie's real name has been concealed for her protection. She's written about today as Genie. She's only famous because of being a test case for a theory for psychologists. Simply as a child abuse victim, her fame would not have lasted. Let's follow the trend set by scholarly articles and continue to respect her privacy. She's famous only as a case study, and her real name adds nothing to that. Ashton1983 (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above considerations, I'd point out that this case differs from the usual BLP situation, where the editors working on an article wish to include information that a dissenter, perhaps the subject, wishes to exclude. Here the editors, informed by the policy, formed a consensus to exercise restraint and not mention real names. Even if there were reasons to think WP:BLP allowed some wiggle room here, the judgement of the article's editors deserves our strong support.--agr (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Gustafson (disambiguous?)

Having a bit of trouble figuring out how to make a significant shift (both within the wiki community and with proper syntax).

There is at present a new bio for John L. Gustafson who has made significant contributions to High Powered Computing, is presently CEO of Massively Parallel Technologies, and is the inventor of Gustafson's Law. There is also a page for a musician John Gustafson who has been in a variety of songs over the last several decades. I think a disambiguation page is necessary (there are also John Gustafson characters in "grumpy old men" played by Jack Lemon and Burgess Meredith.). I am having difficulty in both the implementation, and the permission to do so. There is someone who seems quite protective of the musician site. Advise? Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisourus (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with creating a dab page so long as it is done properly and the links updated. --John (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Faith (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michele Renouf

Since October 2007, User Byafet has been editing this article to introduce NPOV commentary and language, add unreferenced facts, and delete neutral biographical information. This user has been warned numerous times on his or her talk page to no avail, as the user shows no willingness to engage in discussion. The user shows no sign of stopping this continued pattern of tendentious editing to this article. - EronTalk 18:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed this and made some MoS corrections, as well as adding back in facts about the conference that were removed (albeit in a neutral fashion), adding 5 of the many citations from the conference wiki article so that the addition is well cited. I think there's more than one dimension to this problem in review and request additional eyes on the article. --Faith (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saab Lofton

This author has emailed a complaint about the material that was in the article about him. He's since edited in so as to (in his view) fix problems with the text that was there before. At present the article is entirely lacking in references ... could it please receive the finest of BLP attention, and suitable referenced additions as needed? Possibly bits of the history need deletion, I haven't checked through myself - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into it and believe it should simply be deleted. I can find no evidence that this person has achieved any level of notability that would meet WP:BIO. His books appear to be vanity press / self-published. It's a puff piece. 67.67.219.223 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Palmer (squash player) shows obvious bias

Resolved.

In technical terms, Palmer plays a classic attrition game with hard-hitting attacking shots from his opponent's loose shots. He also has a very pure and textbook technique which allows for near perfect shotmaking. Although the emphasis on orthodox racket preparation and followthrough is dimishing these days, Palmer's is beautiful to watch. His deft touch is also exceptional with volley drops taken from exceptional positions throughout his matches. Due to his high level of fitness, he is able to play at a very high intensity for the duration of the match making it very difficult for many opponents to compete.

This is a bit too much emphasis on how good he is considering this is ment to be an encyclopedic reference. It is also made worse by the fact that he isn't a classical player but a hard hitting - intimindating player who uses gamesmanship to intimidate the umpires and his oppponents.

Please edit this so that the bias is removed or so this whole paragraph is removed. This was obviously written by a fan or someone close to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsmanfran (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Someone had already removed a part of that paragraph. I have removed everything else but the first sentence, and I have requested sourcing for that, as well as for allegations that the subject has temper problems that have impacted his career.
Please be careful when correcting a perceived bias not to go too far in the other direction. Criticism may be appropriately incorporated into articles, but does need verification that the criticism comes from reliable sourcing and is not simply your own observation. It also needs to be fairly represented to remain neutral. You should certainly feel free to remove such observations as "Palmer's is beautiful to watch", but claims that he "uses gamesmanship to intimidate the umpires and his opponents" are not permissible, if not attributed to a reputable source.
When you encounter problems within articles and meet dispute in your efforts to correct them, you might try opening a conversation at the article's talk page so that you might reach consensus with the editors of the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Roach

  • Michael Roach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - a website is being used which does not appear to be a reliable source as I read WP:RS and WP:BLP. That source is used in footnotes 11 and 12. The site appears to be a self-published polemical site, diamond-cutter.org, and the pages being used as references are this one for footnote 11, and this one for footnote 12. I believe that the facts should be sourced to some other reference. This site is also linked in the external links section. I have my doubts about the appropriateness even of that, but I am quite sure that it doesn't qualify as a reliable source under the restrictions of WP:BLP. Could someone who is more familiar with the the requirements for sources for biographies of living persons please review this site and determine whether or not it should be used? Also, please engage the editors on the article talk page, as I am not active in editing the page and don't really want to play middleman for any responses... Shu Li Yen (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that this is not a reliable source. I'll remove it for BLP. --Faith (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You may want to take a look at the history of page. It has already been in mediation over including information from www.diamond-cutter.org. It was determined that the source was OK. See here- [35] Seems there was a bit of sock-puppet activity. Wonder if history is repeating itself? -Vritti (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the link you provide was closed not with a resolution, but because one participant could no longer continue (a sockpuppet case as you note), and the other participant withdrew. In any case, mediation was and is the wrong venue for a question about the reliability of a source under WP:BLP. This is the correct venue and the source should simply be evaluated by a knowledgeable and neutral party according to WP:BLP and WP:RS. It's not a matter of consensus and consensus can't override the determination. Neither should the matter go unexamined due to past history. If the source does not indeed meet WP:BLP requirements, it should be promptly removed according to WP:BLP. Please don't try to evade having this looked at by bringing up red herrings. Shu Li Yen (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not a reliable source. The about page states it was created expressly to address the "growing public concern about the behavior and teachings of Geshe Michael Roach". This shows there is no balance or peer review. --Faith (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ashley Tisdale

We got a nice lil' situation here... starting yesterday, folks started adding "Ashley Tisdale has AIDS" bits to the article - as seen here, here and here. The article got fully protected to prevent reinsertion and we've since gotten official denials of the information from Ashley's website, US magazine and People magazine among other sources. Now if this blog entry is true, then what we have here is a deliberate misinformation campaign as retaliation for her covering a Rick Astley song.

Side note: one wrinkle on all this which is a minor concern for me is a statement in the People magazine story saying: "Another Internet site posted what it claimed was a statement from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles." and this edit where this was inserted into the Wiki article: "She was diagnosed with HIV at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California."... were we made into a primary source on this or was this a case of someone parroting what was said elsewhere on the web without slapping a source on it?

In any case, since we have a deliberate campaign here, we should have folks watching for this false rumour to appear in other articles on Wikipedia. Tabercil (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

People. :/ I'll certainly be on the look-out myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama‎

Apparently, there is a contention right now that any mention of William Ayers, a man who has been significantly linked to criticism of Barack Obama and his campaign, is a violation of WP:BLP. I personally believe this is improperly using BLP as a battering ram to get one's own point of view across; however, the controversy exists, and so I have brought it up here. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree completely with Evil Spartan, but keep in mind that at Talk:Barack Obama we've been in a long discussion about whether or not to add mention of Ayers to the article, and I expect it to conclude within a few days, now that we've just started a second poll. So far, we're not close to consensus, and no consensus means no addition of Bill Ayers name to the article — and therefore nothing to decide at this noticeboard. That said, it might be useful for editors knowledgable about WP:BLP to chime in over there with their opinions because it might get us closer to consensus. The discussion is spread out over a huge page, but one good, active section where this has come up would be Talk:Barack Obama#Consensus-building discussion of the options, subsection Option 1: Say nothing about Ayers. Anyone who wants to familiarize themselves with the question may want to participate in the !vote at the section Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Responding here is premature as a ruling, and advice here splits the discussion. If we decide to include Ayers, I'm sure the matter will come right back here. Noroton (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joss Stone

Some heavy stuff going on here, needs some attention. Rape allegations. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some stuff inappropriately sourced/unduly weighted and have commented on the talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Force Research Unit

Can some of the regulars here take a look at the article on Force Research Unit, an alleged British Military Unit previously operating in the province. The material on any FRU itself is light and the majority of the article is mention of individuals who may or may not have been involved. Sourcing is pretty weak, very reliant on a single self published source, and it appears to be quite a lot of original research to try to stitch it together.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think at least that when even the article lead uses 'alleged', the article should be explicit about WHO claims this. You're also right that most of this article appears not to be about the FRU at all but about related events. Stronger, more explicit sourcing is needed, and the removal of OR synthesis. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zakir Naik

Some controversy about alleged anti-Sunni remarks by an Indian moslem public speaker and educator. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to correct the description of the dispute. It pertains to the insertion of a large amount of poor quality material of negative skew which Agnistus tried several times to insert.[36] He was preceded in this by a 'Sherlock holmes' individual,[37] and before that, by Vikramsingh (talk · contribs) and ISKapoor (talk · contribs). ITAQALLAH 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Another addendum. The material under the 'Criticism' heading was erroneously reinserted by these individuals into the article despite its presence there already under the lectures heading. The scope of the dispute is therefore about the other material. ITAQALLAH 14:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gail Collins Pappalardi

Gail Collins Pappalardi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I found this article to be full of unsourced derogatory information about this living person. So I deleted. Another editor reverted most of my deletion, sourcing only a 1983 indictment. The case was undoubtedly resolved, but the article stops its sourcing with a description of the indictment and defense. At purports to report a resolution of the charges, but provides no source. I'm inclined to delete again. But the other editor and I have a history and I don't want to get into an edit war. Would others concerned about WP:BLP take a look at the page please? David in DC (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look and added some sources for the information. The sources are from the Pappalardi.com website and claim to be unaltered news articles about the trial. While I'm unable to verify their accuracy completely, in my judgement it seems highly likely that they are genuine. If so, the sourcing concerns would be gone; there may still be issues with balance, and I think it's questionable if she merits her own article at all. Trebor (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ava Lowery

Ava Lowery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Hoping to stimulate some discussion of this article which has been a source of controversy in the past and in particular about the troublesome quotes section which has been added and removed a number of times, most recently without discussion. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)