Talk:Duclod Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Earlier graffitti 2 Revert edits 3 Removing from category 4 Notability? 5 BLP concerns 6 Interests

[edit] Earlier graffitti

I added that "duclod" graffitti had been seen since at least the mid-1970s. I don't know how to reference this, as the source is my memory (though I've confirmed that my brother remembers it too). DWorley (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert edits

Regarding: Undid revision 141249941 by 69.86.83.185 (talk) 69.86.83.185 made the following edit:

"...a blogger claimed that several ancillary facts in her article were misleading or untrue. The following were among the problems which were alleged, though it is unclear whether these were actual inaccuracies..."

I reverted this edit because it's irrelevant that the source was a blogger. The blogger cites publicly available live examples of the inaccuracies, which should be enough to prove that the stated points in Sarah's article were incorrect. Habadashery2 00:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Then provide those, but beware of WP:OR. A livejournal post is a self-published source and unless the writer of that liverjournal post is identifiable expert in the field (in this case investigative journalism) then whatever they wrote about the article can't be cited. See WP:V and WP:RS. Drawing a conclusion that her article was factually inaccurate requires a reliable source draw that for you. Citing the article, citing the examples and drawing a conclusion from that is original research.--Crossmr (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing from category

I'm removing this article for Category:Sexual and gender prejudices, as it does not meet the category's stated criteria for inclusion: namely, that overt expressions of prejudice (and it's arguable whether this is an expression of prejudice or mental illness) do not belong there, but under either Category:Hate crimes or Category:Discrimination. No malice or favour whatsoever. --7Kim 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability?

Does this meet wikipedia's notability guidelines? Specifically, multiple non-trivial sources? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it does belong here, specifically because it was the subject of multiple articles in an international publication, and also spurred an internet phenomenon which still persists to this day on at least one major messageboard (see the external links sections for messageboard posts relating to this subject). Internet users may end up here wondering what the heck "duclod" is when they've seen it elsewhere. Also, googling "duclod" yields this wikipedia article quite near the top of the list, so apparently people have been already linking to it.Habadashery2 05:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

2 articles by the same person. its a very thin hold on notability. Additional reliable and notable sources reporting on this would be useful in firmly establishing notability.--Crossmr (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP concerns

I have removed the supposed real name of the man from the article. It is not sourced, and the article specifically says that Aswell didn't give it. This makes it original research if people have tracked it down from other information. Also, the man has received death threats; we don't need to be contributing to that. Aleta (Sing) 04:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to read the articles. She refers to him by his first name on about a dozen occasions in the second article. Which is actually not the name used in the article here.--Crossmr (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

She refers to him as Richard. That's not the same first name as the full name I removed, nor is it a full name at all. I don't know whether Richard or the other name is his true name, but we shouldn't use any more than is used in the Advocate articles. Aleta (Sing) 05:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice Richard is used in the rest of the article previously. I might dig and find out who added it. I know when this story hit digg a while back that the name that was in there was tossed around, I'm not sure where it came from.--Crossmr (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] it was added by an IP with no edit summary or source.--Crossmr (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good job running that down! Who knows if it's even accurate? It could well be some idiot's idea of a joke (read: vandalism). Even if correct, I'd object to its inclusion for the reasons above though. Aleta (Sing) 06:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A google search reveals some kind of connection, but its seemingly original research unless someone provides a reliable source which makes the connection. I believe a number of people tried to find out who this richard was based on the information she gave up in the articles. Certainly not a reliable source, but I'm fairly sure it came out of that "investigation".--Crossmr (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interests

I am not sure of the significance of section 6 interests; As the net effect is to bring this article up as a what links here for all the subjects mentioned, it could be seen as negative BLP. We could of course simply remove the links.DGG (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)