Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NickCT (talk | contribs) at 16:33, 2 August 2011 (→Adam Levine: keep it out). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Ray Lewis

Ray Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Section 4 titled Arrest for Murder uses speculative information and a testimony as factual information. References 25 specifically. The section suggest Ray Lewis is guilty and presents him in a negative light. The section should read like this:

Lewis gained infamy through his involvement in a much-publicized tragedy in Atlanta after Super Bowl XXXIV. Lewis, along with Reginald Oakley and Joseph Sweeting, were charged with two counts of murder and four other felony counts in the deaths of Richard Lollar and Jacinth Baker, after a street brawl left two young men dead outside a nightclub.

On June 5, a plea bargain was struck, and murder and aggravated assault charges against Lewis were dropped in exchange for his testimony against his companions. He pled guilty to one count of obstruction of justice and was sentenced to a year of probation. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue fined Lewis $250,000 for conduct detrimental to the league, a penalty aimed at the obstruction of justice.

Lewis' testimony didn't help the prosecution in the four-week trial, which ended in acquittals for Oakley and Sweeting.

The following year, Lewis was named Super Bowl XXXV MVP. However, the signature phrase "I'm going to Disney World!" was given instead by quarterback Trent Dilfer.

In 2004, Lewis reached a settlement compensating then four-year-old India Lollar, born months after the death of her father Richard, preempting a scheduled civil proceeding. Lewis also previously reached an undisclosed settlement with Baker's family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnsy1627 (talk • contribs)

mohamed faarax aidid

somalia has never had a president since mohamed siad barre (1991) - ali mahdi mohamed was a self-declared one but for a short period of time between january and june 1991. Please remove mohamed faarax aidid and hussein mohamed faarax aidid from somalian presidents' list. There is no somalia central state since 1991. Merci

family kocovic

AS I REMEMBER as a child about my fathers side of the family, Kocovic, my grandparents Savo and Milijana have roots in Monte Negro, now I am not completely sure how long ago was that family Kocovic migrated, however they settled in Ribnica, near Kraljevo. Savo and Milijana had Cedomir, Dragomir, Milijana (Mica), Dusan (my father) and three other kids. My grandfather Savo is killed during WW-II on his doorstep by chetniks, while his two sons where killed in Banjica, concentration camp, during WW-II. Their property has been confiscated by Yugoslavian goverment in 1945. and they are left with small block of land. All of Kocovic family has been fighting against fashist regime, some of them has perished but some of them like Milijana, Dusan, Cedomir and Dragomir survived WW-II. Kocovic Dragomir (nearly blind) and Kocovic Dusan have had carear in Yugoslav army, long time retired before civil war on Balkans erupted.

Clifford Vaughs

• Clifford Vaughs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In 1969, Clifford Vaughs and Lew Irwin were awarded by the Associated Press California, "Best Documentary" for "Berkely Third World or Third Reich". Special award for "The Most Creative Presentation of the News" for "Credibility Gap". Vaughs and Irwin formed VIP (Vaughs/Irwin Productions) and produced the shows at KRLA radio, Pasadena California. "Credibility Gap" went into syndication.

J. Patrick Capps

J. Patrick Capps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the subject of this article, and while I am flattered someone thinks enough of me to create a[REDACTED] page, I am concerned it might detract from my work. I will request that my page be deleted as soon as possible.J. Patrick Capps Monday, June 20, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.33.174 (talk • contribs)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/J. Patrick Capps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ernesto J. Cordero

Ernesto J. Cordero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1) In the level of PERSONAL LIFE it appears that he dropped out the Ph. D. in Economics. This is false, his current status is all but dissertation (ABD)

2) Controversy: His net earnings are not 200,000 pesos. The correct info is 145, 000 pesos.

3)Controversy: This is the transcript with the exact words in page 8.

Pauline Nyiramasuhuko

Her article lacks a date of birth, and there's no right-hand sidebar of vital statistics as all other biographic articles seem to have. Given that an international court has just convicted her, surely her approximate age has been stated *somewhere* ?

BLP errors in mentions of James Cantor (me).

user:Jokestress continues to add erroneous/misleading material about me (and my colleagues) to WP pages.

• The current instance is her erroneous claim that "The term homosexual transsexual has been promoted by psychologists including Ray Blanchard and James Cantor since 1989 as part of Blanchard's transsexualism typology".

• Although she changed "promoted" to "used", the statement is still incorrect and must be removed. (I wasn't even in this field in 1989. I have an easily documented history of using multiple terminologies, not just the terminology Jokestress falsely attempts to associate with me.)

• user:Jokestress maintains off-wiki attack sites spreading other misinformation about me and other scientists who disagree with her views. Indeed, her harassment of scientists, and even of their children, has become vivid enough so as to be mentioned in the NYTimes.

What's the best way to handle both the immediate BLP problem and the long-term, slow-burning one?

Although I have long maintained on my user page this pledge not to edit the historically problematic articles, I have not been able to convince user:Jokestress to hold herself to the same standard.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone familiar with the long and passionate dispute between these two, I must state that it is highly inappropriate for Jokestress to edit Cantor's Misplaced Pages biography or other information about him...just as it would be if Cantor were to edit hers, Andrea James, or information about her. They have been cautioned against doing so more than once. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record: Jokestress' edit was not on the page about me (James Cantor), but was an edit to Androphilia and gynephilia, on which she named me and adding incorrect information about my record. This has occurred in the context of the proposed deletion of that page or merger into Sexual orientation.— James Cantor (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the content you have specifically complained about. diff - If User:Jokestress is really keeping attack sites about you she should stop editing content about you here, she has a clear conflict of interest/inability to edit from a NPOV position - I would also like to see User:Jokestress voluntarily repay your declaration and stop editing content related to you on wikipedia. If not and the patterns continue, the WP:ANI might be a better place to report in future. It says in the Newyorktimes article that User:Jokestress went so far as to " download images from J. Michael Bailey's Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided."NYT article - that she should have done that off wiki and that she is the main contributor to that persons[REDACTED] BLP is incredulous. She is clearly unable to edit the subject neutrally, I think she should be topic banned. I suggest if she refuses to voluntarily stop editing your BLP and Mr Baileys you should take a little time to write a complaint, include diffs of any policy/NPOV violations/misrepresentation of sources and report the user at WP:ANI Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Off2riorob. Of course, I agree with everything you said. There have been multiple AN/I (and other) reports over the long history. Although I would entirely support and contribute to any discussion of the problem, if I were the one to actually initiate it, it would quickly get interpreted/distracted by being called my personal grudge, rather than an external view.— James Cantor (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with off2rio to the extent that I think there is no need for ani. Everything has been discussed often enough and long enough. This is considered an administrative board, and I will topic ban her from editing about you and Bailey in any article if this happens again, and block if there is continuation beyond that. Naturally, this goes for your editing about her as well. I have warned her. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The text you left at User_talk:Jokestress#BLPN_- could be interpreted as an interaction ban or prohibiting Jokestress from acknowledging James Cantor as an editor, since typing "James Cantor (talk · contribs) added this text to this article, and I disagree with it" on a talk page would be an "edit referring to James Cantor". Your note here suggests that you meant only that Jokestress should not mention Cantor in the mainspace.

I don't have an opinion about what would be best, but a clarification now might save grief later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to clarify. I am referring to article space. We normally do not restrict talk p. suggestions unless the situation is even worse than the present one. My view applies equally to all parties. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A question: Have Cantor and Blanchard used the term? Nowhere does he clearly state that they haven't used the term. James' point #2 conceeds a partial retraction of point #1. James' point #3 is off-wiki, and so irrelevant to BLP except as an attempt to, as James would put it, poison the well. James' response to point #2 hinges on where one puts parentheses (unless Blanchard was also not in the field in 1989.) Now, if Cantor and Blanchard have not used the term in question, then the edit is wrong and should be removed. Whether one should be tarred and feathered for falsely attributing the use of a term is debatable.

This leaves us with one or two simple questions that may decide this matter: James, have you used the term, 'homosexual transsexual,' and has Blanchard? A simple yes or no will suffice. If yes, then Jokestress' statement is true. If no, just say so. (That action was taken before this question was asked casts some doubt on the neutrality of the actor.) A "no" would then place the burden on someone else to find some place where James Cantor has used the term (e.g. the Archives of Sexual Behavior).

Regarding Androphilia and gynephilia, we should note that auto- androphilia and auto- gynephilia are included under the title Blanchard's transsexualism typology. As a result, the Androphilia and gynephilia article is one that Cantor probably should not be editing, much less attempting to delete. BitterGrey (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to point out the danger of cherry-picking. In anyone's extensive work on a subject over a period of time, it is usually possible to find some contradictory or un-representative statements. Our role is to report people's work and opinions, not try to hunt for their errors--unless these exceptional statements or errors have been the subject of significant reliable neutral commentary. Science is not a duel to the death where one fault causes disaster. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I, and I suspect many others, wouldn't consider use of the term a scientific failing. Of course, scientific accuracy isn't the issue in this particular discussion; just whether or not they used the term. Simple. I'm still waiting for a yes or a no on that. BitterGrey (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it matters. One could "use" the term in a statement like "Smith says that we ought to use the term androphilia in this situation, but I think that homosexual is more appropriate". Is that really "using" the term?

More importantly, a laundry list of people who have ever used the term is a basic WP:SYNTH violation: you may not string together a bunch of primary sources to advance the position that the term is being used by reliable sources. If we want to make that point, then we need a source that directly says that the term is used/accepted/preferred/whatever.

So we could easily be looking at a situation in which pointing out Cantor's use (if any) is a serious misrepresentation of his actual position and a clear-cut violation of our most basic content policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Or we could be looking at yet another smokescreen. Cantor is accusing Jokestress of falsely claiming that Cantor used a term. I understand why you and others wish to complicate this. If James Cantor used the term, then Jokestress's claim isn't false. This would be a 'yes' answer to my question, and it would mean that the accusation of a BLP violation was pointless (at best) from the start. On the other hand, if James says that he didn't use the term, it would be a simple matter to show that he in fact has, as Jokestress already did.

So James Cantor, have you used the term? Yes or No? BitterGrey (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer. Comments like James Cantor's "I use 'homosexual transsexual'..." seem to make it quite clear that he does indeed use the term, and was falsely accusing Jokestress. BitterGrey (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point: "use" does not mean "promote" (Jokestress's original and false claim), and in the context of the actual sentence, "use" is highly likely to be misinterpreted as "support".

You "used" the term homosexual transsexual in the sentence above. Would you like to be singled out as a key example of someone who uses that term, in a sentence like "BitterGrey, an activist for sexual minorities, uses the term homosexual transsexual, which is generally considered offensive and derogatory by the people it refers to"? Would that "100% factual" sentence fairly represent your beliefs about the appropriateness of that term? Or would that sentence give the typical reader a false impression of your support for that term? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the "promote" was retracted and replaced with "used" before the BLP violation was filed here - see James' second point up at the start. "Use" does mean "use." And yes, I have now used the term. If I now accused WhatamIdoing of a BLP violation for having written that I used the term, that would be preposterous. That is, unless I or my friends engaged in some doublespeak to obscure things. Of course, that is pretty much what James Cantor did. BitterGrey (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

But would it be a fair and complete representation of your support for the offensive term?

To give a different example: if someone names a specific racial slur in a speech entirely dedicated to deploring it, are we being fair and complying with the NPOV policy by saying "____ actually said the n-word in public"? It would be "100% factual"—but I think it would be 100% misleading, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, at the time this was filed, it was not "promote", not "support," but "use." Whom are you hoping to confuse? BitterGrey (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert W. Harrell, Jr.

This individual is a politician in South Carolina. Information that reflects negatively upon him has been removed from his biography on more than one occasion and replaced with puffery, likely written by members of his staff.

Animal X

Animal_X_(band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article 'animal x (band) is about a music band from the country of romania. Please consider it is not a living person. It got me confused expression wikipedia:biographies of living persons and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons.. should it not tagg articles for living characters in the band?

Anders Behring Breivik "manifesto"

I tried to remove information that was sourced only to the e-book published by this person but my edits were reverted .

I think it is entirely inappropriate for us to be producing OR comments based solely on his "manifesto" e-book; this is a recurring problem on this BLP. (As opposed to elements of the lengthy tome that the media has decided to cover).

I won't repeat my edits, but I do hope others can check it and see what they think.  Chzz  ►  01:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that he wrote the manifesto, and so the manifesto is verifiably consisting of claims made by him. Particularly where they are about himself, per WP:ABOUTSELF we're allowed to accept those.Teapeat (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I agree with Chzz. We should be reporting what secondary and tertiary reliable sources say about this manifesto, not engaging in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. We can use the manifesto to back claims made in secondary sources *if* needed for verifiability (ie someone says a source is misrepresenting the manifesto), but we cannot engage in research or commentary ourselves, and since this is a BLP, we should refrain from publishing anything that a RS has not published. Readers have a link to the manifesto which they can read if they choose to.--Cerejota (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OR is when the editors of the Misplaced Pages join information from multiple sources together to synthesise a position; but none of those diffs involve doing that. You're also oversimplifying selfpub/aboutself. In aboutself we are permitted to use self published sources in certain situations. The Misplaced Pages is verifiability over truth, and we're allowed to use self published sources to prove that somebody claimed something, provided it's not self serving. And these cases do not seem to be.Teapeat (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the policy, and in particular, the word "or"! Note, Misplaced Pages does not publish original thought: all material in Misplaced Pages must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material ...

The document is not a reliable source.

These claims fall into the 'new analysis' part; nobody is talking about novel synthesis.

all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source.

Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material.

Please, re-read the policy.  Chzz  ►  02:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The information is very clearly original research. The information about his mother and childhood is something that could potentially be used from the manifesto (though there are probably more reliable sources available for the information), but the information added to the writings section, with the quotes and all, is information that is being inferred from the primary source and is not being given by a secondary source. Thus, it is original research and should be removed. Silverseren 03:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is a duplicate of Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Manifesto_as_a_source_and_other_notes_on_sourcing. Short summary of my thoughts: Using the manifesto as source is not wrong per se (which is exactly what the policy states), and the active editor community has already demonstrated resilence in editing out improper synthesis of the primary source in the article. Secondary sources for many simple facts (like whether he ran for the city council in 2003, and what he thought about it) are not yet available. Although I admit that editors should use caution when using the manifesto as source, forbidding its use entirely, when such is not mandated by the policy, demonstrates a priori bias against the community. To mitigate potential abuse, I suggest adding an editnotice on the page, notifying the editors of the primary source policy, but adding it requires administrator intervention. --hydrox (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This policy is relevant as well and specifically allows for such sources: Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. As with any primary source, strong caveats against original interpretation, original synthesis, and cherry-picking apply. Peter G Werner (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I take the view that there should be an a priori bias against the community. Contrary to popular belief, editors aren't reliable sources so there's no reason to trust their handling of primary sources. It's a sensible approach for an encyclopedia to take. Any sampling of a primary source by an editor here is cherrypicking and a form of analysis based on what the editor personally believes to be a significant and meaningful part of the whole that conveys something the editor, not an RS, wants to convey. The editor selects something for a reason and yet the editor isn't a reliable source. If something hasn't been published by an RS yet there is no need to include it. This edit is a pretty typical example of what happens when editors are allowed to sample primary sources. Editors see whatever they want to see in the source and sample whatever they want to sample because it is meaningful to them personally. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To consider the "manifesto" to be a reliable source seems crazy.  Chzz  ►  19:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Only if you forget that reliability is context-dependent. Every single book, no matter how false its contents, is a reliable WP:PRIMARY source for questions like "what words are at the top of page six?" or "what date does the copyright page give?" or "what is this book's title?" Editors may use the book as a reliable source for a summary of the book's contents, exactly like they may use any novel ever published to write a summary of the plot. This is WP:NOTOR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a published book - and it is a verifiable fact that he didn't write large chunks of it, it was copied and plagiarised. So to even claim "he wrote that he is a such-and-such" isn't accurate. Unfortunately, in desperation to write about him, a lot of other "reliable sources" are ignoring that, and printing all kinds of claims - often contradictory.  Chzz  ►  22:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

DSK and the maid (again)

vertott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dominique Strauss-Kahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, just dropped by for a quick visit, thought I would flag this up as have to go and do stuff in RL.
This user has decided that despite weeks of discussion as to the relevance of naming the maid (whose name has been known for weeks), as per WP guidelines, for example WP:BLP1E or WP:BLPNAME, that because she's given an interview we must out her.
Also, there is an article on a Senegalese writer with a similar name which this editor disingenuously added a redirect to, and then claimed on the main DSK talk page "Misplaced Pages already names her, if you go to her page XXXX it is clear who she is", yes, well, a fine example of circular reasoning there. Some eyes would be appreciated. CaptainScreebo 10:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinion: I had a look, and think the person is a non-public figure that should not be named on the article, per presumption in favour of privacy, and because her name is irrelevent to both those articles. Currently, she isn't named. If it's added, I suggest removing it per WP:NPF / WP:BLPNAME, and protecting if necessary.

So, I agree with Captain Screebo - these policies are here for exactly these cases, and should be enforced.  Chzz  ►  10:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The individual is naming herself. Misplaced Pages is not uncovering some fact that would otherwise lay hidden, obscure, or not easily accessed. This reliable source serves as an indication that the presumption-of-privacy argument does not have bearing here. An interview given is for the direct purpose of disseminating information. It defies logic that Misplaced Pages is going to assume that the individual does not want her name to be known. Misplaced Pages is not the only source of this information, thus no practical purpose is served in omitting the individual's name. Omitting her name seems like sanctimonious posturing to me. Bus stop (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think a case can be made not to name her as she is a one event private person and only notable as the alleged victim of a crime and it specifically adds nothing of value to the readers understanding of the allegations/trial anyway. Her simple name is irrelevant. A case can be considered that the alleged victim has been forced into giving an interview in an attempt to defend her name. The BBC are reporting the interview - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14271114 but unless you want to add details about her life story (all of which would have BLP issues imo} simply adding her name imo is of questionable added value to the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooh là là, here we go again, just to add that there is an article about this latest development on the Orange.fr website where they do not name the woman even if the people in the comments section know her name and name her.

So, this would appear to be an editorial decision on the part of Orange to not spread her name all over the place, as would seem to be the consensus here on Misplaced Pages, i.e. editorial policy versus if it's out there let's publish it. CaptainScreebo 12:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, anyone fancy cleaning up the talk pages of these two articles as BLP policy applies there too? CaptainScreebo 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should leave the discussions as her name is all over the press, discussion it on the talkpage is imo fine (I may just change the header) - and archive after the discussion ends. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok saw that, good to go, must really get off wp now ;-) CaptainScreebo 13:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sure - I'm not bothered about it being on the talk page; I wouldn't bother with revdel or OS or anything. It's just, quite simply, I don't see an advantage in adding it to the article - that's all, really. She's not a notable person.  Chzz  ►  13:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

CaptainScreebo, the result of "weeks of discussion" seem to be totally irrelevant, now that the situation has reversed itself. We are no longer protecting her privacy by suppressing her name, when she's very publicly gone on national TV.

Here's what WP:BLP says: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it"

Her name has now been widely disseminated (cbs newsreuterswashington postnew york times, etc.) So that restriction clearly doesn't apply.

" … Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value."

And she's directly involved, so this other restriction clearly doesn't apply either.

I doesn't matter if people think she's not "notable" enough or think giving her name doesn't add value, if she's directly involved and her name is widely disseminated then by[REDACTED] policy we should include her name. And, that's exactly what we should do here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A quick comment, Bob, I posted here because one user decided that weeks of discussion were irrelevant, in one of my edit commentaries I left the summary 'please wait for BLP consensus', if there is consensus to name her, then fine go ahead, one editor is not consensus. That's all, to get more eyes on it and see what people think. I'm in France and she's been all over the TV, but as some point out "what encyclopaedic value does it add?" Not much, IMHO, but she is now named. So be it. CaptainScreebo 22:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• - posting this here to add to the discussion - User:PatGallacher has added this to the trial article diff and this to the article about a writer with the same name. I have reverted them both - one for original research and that discussion is ongoing and consensus is unclear and the other as it is part of the reverted addition to the trial article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I was the person who "disingenously" added the redirect to the article on the writer with a similar name, I did so because it struck me that this was no longer an issue since the maid has clearly gone public, see BBC report there is likely to be more in similar vein over the next few days. PatGallacher (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No one has suggested you "disingenuously" added the redirect to the article on the writer with a similar name. I certainly am not suggesting you made either of the edits in anything but good faith. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• No you're not @ Pat, I was referring to this, , where Vertott in fact added this back (originally contributed by an IP 2 edits earlier) while claiming on a tp, "we must name her, there's a WP article about her anyways". That is what I found disingenuous. FYI :=) CaptainScreebo 22:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Are people reading what they write before they post it ? How can Nafissatou Diallo have any expectation of privacy when she is the one that has gone out and given the interview and decided to have her name published? The claim that she still is a "non-public figure" also fails to stand up, the fact that an interview she gave for Newsweek in the US was reported by the BBC in England is testament to that. The claim that "no benefit to the understanding of this article in giving the name" also fails as how can it be beneficial to withhold the name of one side of this case but openly discuss the other, it leads to an unbalanced article. There no longer seams to be any valid reason not to included it now she has herself gone public. To me this appears to be double standards, if this had been in any other conthry Wikiepedia would be leading the charge against suppressing her name under similar circumstances. VERTott 00:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Posting in one place is usually plenty at wikipedia, cut and copy posting your comment at multiple locations is not quite spam but if you were to post it at three locations it would be. As for your comment - I for one (and I know there are others) do not care what country anywhere is and suppression is far different from using editorial control and erring on the side of caution in regard to such a person to not add the valueless name of a one event alleged victim of crime. Its not so much a position of privacy as being basically apart from this alleged victim of crime, a private person. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you are clearly very passionate about protecting the privacy of this one person. However, now that she has gone very public with her name, there seems to be absolutely _no_ violation of BLP by including her name in the article. Claiming that you personally don't think that it add enough value does _not_ mean that it violates BLP. And, if there is no violation of BLP. it would seem that you really need to stop your reverts. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

On Tuesday her photo appeared on the front page of the Guardian, an important British newspaper, accompanied by this article where she is named and interviewed . As she has gone public it's difficult to see what privacy there is to defend, it becomes increasingly artificial to avoid adding it. The fact that she has gone public is surely of some note. We have the additonal problem that she has a similar name to an African writer, it's difficult to see how we can clarify that they are not the same person without naming her. Avoiding adding her name means keeping an eye on 4 articles: DSK's biog, the article on the assault case, the article on her name (currenty a redirect to the African writer) and the African writer with a similar name. People shouldn't pre-judge what other people's motives might be for adding her name, in my view this is now legitimate encyclopedic material. PatGallacher (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I got Newsweek in the mail yesterday, and she was no the cover. Her television interview was watched by millions. She couldn't try any harder to raise her profile. There's no reason not to name her. If we could ask her, she probably request an article on herself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please try to reach consensus here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

David Goodwillie

The person David Goodwillie has had his rape charge dropped . Should the entire inclusion at the controversies section of the article relating to this charge be removed due to no conviction? Monkeymanman (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been widely reported, been a major issue in his move from Dundee Utd not happening as yet. AS long as it includes the fact the case was dropped, then it's balanced and relevant. Minkythecat (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally not to mention it all is wrong it was a major case in scotland, Its been reported that his proposed transfer to rangers and cardiff were delayed as they wanted to wait until his court case was confirmed before it went through. He may not of been convicted but it should be mentioned. Probably a lot played down than it currently is but at least it should be there for some context. As it did happen we cant blank that from history Warburton1368 (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - maybe worth focusing on the case being dropped as the focal point rather than several links to the case. Minkythecat (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For the reason that he was accused, charged and then all charges dropped (even before it got to court) it proves he was in effect (in legal terms) innocent of any crime. With regards to transfers, both clubs have had bids in for the player (which was reported) which were rejected because they did not match the clubs valuation, they did not say they were going to wait to see the outcome of this case before deciding over a possible transfer. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Cardiff bid was accepted. The potential outcome of this case would have been far worse than the pending assault case. Move may occur fairly soon. Minkythecat (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There has to be some mention and it was mentioned in several sources that cardiff were in no hurry to push transfer through and were waiting for the outcome of whether the case was to be dropped. This was expected to be announced a few weeks ago but was delayed by the Crown Office. The section has been greatly reduced which is probably the correct action but we should mention it. Nobody is saying he is guilty it certainly dosent sat it in the article but history shouldn't be wiped altogether Warburton1368 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Even the one sentence is too much. It leaves the lingering impression that there may have been some truth to the charges ("insufficient evidence"), even though, not only did the Crown refuse to prosecute, but he was never convicted. The fact that the events leading up to the dropping of the charges were "widely reported" is irrelevant. That is always the danger of us report on evolving news stories as if we're a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia. The sentence is a violation of WP:BLP ("it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment").--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I support Bbb23 in this position in regard to cautious interpretation of WP:BLP also - the detail imo if belonged anywhere would be at the accusers article, but they are not notable... - In February ***** accused a man of rape, after investigating the police dropped all charges against the man and said there was insufficient evidence to charge. It might seem high profile event in his life now in the press but in a few years[REDACTED] will be the only place the continues to report it. - Ask yourself - is it really encyclopedic long term content - 20 years ago jonny was accused of rape by a woman, after investigations the police dropped all charges saying there was insufficient evidence of rape. Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Support complete removal. Big news in 2011 is not encyclopedic content relative to the person's whole career. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed and left the addition-er a note to please discuss here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If Off ( and there's an apt name ) had a brain cell, he'd see my "addition" was in fact a subtraction, to mention the case but lessen the number of links to articles about it. As I pointed out earlier, it needs stressing the case was dropped... yet a numpty claims that's leading... Minkythecat (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Minjythecat's comment are getting a bit personally attacking hee and on his talkpage, I have left his a personal attack template. Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Might want to use a spell checker there. Nice to see you've arbitrarily decided the way the article should look based around a few negative comments from 3 people within a half hour time frame. Minkythecat (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course this needs mentioning, it's received incredible amounts of press coverage in the UK, and erasing it completely from his article smacks of censorship. However, we need to choose the wording very carefully, to be as neutral as possible. GiantSnowman 18:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Scotland national football team manager Craig Levein has said the allegations were a factor in him not selecting Goodwillie (source). That is a clear and demonstrable effect on his career. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be reinstated into article in context with careful wording but it must be there. Ive said this before we cant wipe history it happened whether he is guilty or not. The article wouldn't say he was Guilty it would say there was insufficient evidence to proceed. Along as its well referenced whats the problem. His football carrer has been effectively on hold whilst the case was being decided on. Clubs said they were willing to wait on the outcome of the case before placing full transfer bids. Warburton1368 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With regards to BLP policy it should be removed. That has been stated on numerous BLP articles where they have been accused, charged and then all charges are dropped. His career was not on hold, he played almost everygame last season for United, if it was on hold he would have been dropped or forced to leave the club (just like Craig Thomson (footballer) except he was found guilty in a court of law, see the diff). Which club said that they were waiting to see the outcome of the trial? (which never emerged) Or was it just editorial judgement on reporters parts. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Craig Levein clearly stated last night that his international career had been on hold pending this process. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny how he mentions that after the charge is dropped. If there was any weight behind his statement he would have come out and said when goodwillie was first charged that he was not available for selection until his court case is completed. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how or why he said it, he did. Therefore it is clearly an important factor in Goodwillie's career to date. Levein picked him for the last game before the incident (the Faroe Islands match in November) and hasn't picked him in the three matches since (Brazil, Rep. Ireland and Wales). His comments yesterday indicate that he will be picked for the next game (Denmark), fitness permitting. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, these allegations have affected his career, and therefore needs mentioning. GiantSnowman 20:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

re the level of transfer interest, this BBC report states: "Interest in the player has grown since a rape charge was dropped against him earlier this week, with up to 10 clubs now believed to be monitoring the situation." Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that we need to mention the fact that the charges were dropped and that while they were pending, they affected his career. One or at most two sentences ought to be sufficient. (It will be easier to figure out the perfect balance a few years from now.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Done in the international career section. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Petkoff

Robert Petkoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This request for eyes on the article Robert Petkoff was archived before any action was posted on resolving it. Notice has been been posted that it may require clean up - it appears to meet the criteria for living persons article - could someone please take a look before I edit/add to this article? Thanks! Cwands (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The article looks promotional and more like a CV than a biography. A lot of the material needs to be justified by reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you advise what should be revised for this article? Most of the material has extensive references and cites for verification - I am unclear what else I can do to meet the standard for a living person biography. Thanks for your help. Cwands (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Gudrun Schyman

Gudrun Schyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm Swedish, and thus have a lot more sources availible than the average wikipedian with regards to the subject. Still, this was (is) a mess of such proportions that I don't think I can fix it. Maybe crowdsourcing it here can make it less headache-inducing. Good grief.

Fiona Graham

Disputes taking place within this article are potentially harmful to the career of Sayuki, and may infringe on her rights to be a part of the Geisha community despite her Western heritage. There is dispute concerning:

- Whether Fiona was the first Western Geisha or not

- What should be the name of the article (and whether it should refer to 'Sayuki' throughout with no mention of Fiona)

- The matter of whether Fiona is still working, or working independently, or something in between.

An independent and objective evaluation would be extremely valuable in finding middle ground, balancing Fiona's rights and Misplaced Pages's principles, and ending editing wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrceep (talk • contribs) 05:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A quick search of the archives reveals that this has been discussed before... – ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been discussed at length on the talk pages, too. The article as it stands reflects consensus and conforms to Misplaced Pages policies. Most, if not all, objection comes from a handful of IP addresses and single-purpose accounts which all appear to belong to Graham herself. Your Lord and Master (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit: The three points that Graham raised above have already been addressed. (1) She was not the first Western geisha -- that was Liza Dalby and there are references to prove it. (2) The name of the article is Fiona Graham and her geisha name of Sayuki is mentioned when appropriate. (3) The article does imply that she is still working but not as a member of Tokyo Asakusa Association. Lastly, the phrase "her rights to be a part of the geisha community" is laughable, given that one needs to be invited in, and can be expelled (as Graham found) at any time by the kumiai. Your Lord and Master (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik (3)

In his 1,500 page manifesto Anders Behring Breivik apparently mentioned, quoted, or in other ways cited a fairly large number of individuals. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Misplaced Pages editors are now adding that information to some of their biographies (typically authors who have been critical of Islam or Islamism), in what appears to be an attempt at guilt by association. Here are some examples:. Sometimes this information is even added to the article's lede (e.g. ]). It seems to me that this is a pretty clear violation of WP:BLP, and I thought it would be good to discuss this as a systemic issue, rather than debating it on each article's Talk: page. Jayjg 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't even think we have to go as far as WP:BLP, just simple logic suffices to keep the information out. The fact that Breivik, in his massive personal tome, chose to talk about one subject or another, does not mean that Breivik should be mentioned on the articles of those subjects. For instance, if Breivik happened to include in his manifesto a few pages talking about why he thinks that McDonald's is a model corporation, would we include the info there? If he noted that he wrote much of it while staying in New South Wales, would we include that in the NSW article? Of course not. By that logic, every time any "famous" person mentioned anything in a book, then we would include that information in that page. Basically, putting Breivik on those pages is arguing that Breivik's opinions somehow meet WP:DUE on the subjects in question, which they obviously do not. Now, if, for example, we were to learn that Breivik trained with some famous anti-Muslim group, then that might (just might, depending on all the details) belong on that group's page. But not his random opinions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It clearly appears as guilt by association - this living person was mentioned by a mass murderer - its only notable about the author - Breivik. I looked at a couple and removed them - I left one because the subject has commented about the fact that he was mentioned - he said that Breivik also mentioned President Obahma. Robert_Spencer_(author)#2011_Norway_attacks - really even though he has legitimized it in some small way by responding to the fact, I still want to remove it as negative coatracking in a BLP Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what happens when people decide that Breveik is notable on his own, outside of the event he created. A slippery slope we should never have started down.Griswaldo (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Though I should add that the coming years will not be kind to people like Robert Spencer in this regard. In a year or two you'll have scholarship that ties Breveik to his sources in a way that is much more meaningful, and I will not personally object to those sources being used at that time.Griswaldo (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these passing mentions by Breivik in his manifesto should be removed from other articles. However, I disagree with Griswaldo's good faith opinion that this problem is due to the fact that we have a separate article on Breivik. Nothing would prevent ill-advised editing of this sort even if Breivik didn't have his own article and was discussed only in a subsection of the article about the murders and bombing. BLP concerns don't go away when a person is described in a larger article rather than an article titled with a person's name. Let's face it, Breivik is and forever will be notable, and we have BLP issues to deal with wherever he (or anyone else controversial) is discussed in this encyclopedia. That's an ongoing problem that won't go away, but which can be managed through the normal editing process. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a easy credit for someone that creates - Manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik - although they would have to put up with the possible disruption it might cause.Off2riorob (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Been done several times already; not notable for now; 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence, 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence, A European Declaration of Independence, 2083, A European Declaration of Independence, etc.  Chzz  ►  09:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The same phenomenon seems to be going on in Anders_Behring_Breivik#2083:_A_European_Declaration_of_Independence. I'm minded to wipe the lot of them, living or dead. With so many cited in 1500 pages, mentioning any is arguably a breach of POV, even if BLP doesn't come into it. Views? --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy the slippery slope argument because this is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, so, if you don't like it, be WP:BOLD. Of course, also get reverted.

The recentism-is-bad crowd, of which I am a wayward sheep, needs to stop blaming recenticism for all the ills surrounding recent event articles, and also needs to stop looking at every recent event as the same. As the guy who started the article in question, who defended it in AfD successfully, got an admin reversed for trying the old "redirect-full protection" trick (which is a much more serious breach of the rules than a debatable BLP1E vio - one dis-empowers editors in a finite fashion, the other can be reverted by process), and hence in part responsible for the article existence, I just knew by seeing how this played out in the news this guy was wiki notable. Such is not always the case with perps notable for a single event, but I just knew this kid was special - because when his name was released I knew the world's media who had screamed AL QAEDA to the top of their lungs had gotten it wrong, and when the media gets it wrong, it make sures to put whoever cl0wnd them under a microscope. So, lets be careful not to blame the existence of the article for the POV-pushing ways of a few sock/meatpuppets doin it wrong...

The presence of Jayjg here reminds me that stuff (such as sourced guilt by association, WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE issues, using wikipeida notability to mean that a person is suddenly allowed to expertly speak about any topic, and all the other niceties Jayjg -and others here- correctly identify that this child murderer's manifesto's is being misused for) also happen in very old topics. Such as the entire WP:ARBPIA area (in which recentism is also a problem, but not even the main one). So, slippery slope argument is not very convincing, and is in fact as reductio as those who think that Breivik is all of the sudden a reliable source on Zionism, the anti-Islamic right (or McDonald's!). I am on the record for stating that in the entire BLP on Breivik, at most a short sentence, but preferably a few words, suffice to address his relationship with Zionism. I think the guilt-by-association charge is fair, and there is no reason to believe that his Zionism is much more related to the actually important and central stuff of his Islamophobia. Saying he is a Zionist is not a slur, is a self-claim, but using that self-claim in an OR fashion to vandalize unrelated articles shouldn't be tolerated. Nor should drive-by "see also" includes be accepted. However, as to Jayjg's diffs, this is also guilt by association. A careful examination reveals that not all diffs are created equal. is sourced and in a pre-existing section, in which associations are made in the same fashion as that with Brievik. One cannot pick and choose who agrees with oneself, and unfortunately for Ms. Ali, Breivik did agree with her - so I think that is not a bad faith edit, but one subject to article consensus and editing. Likewise, but weaker because of the context it is placed in the article, with . However and specially are obvious drive-by, and shouldn't be allowed. I mean, "See also" inclusions are a classic way to establish guilt by association and a loophole to OR we somehow refuse to close.

Adding to the lede, however, I see no reason why, both in the actual article, and in the abstract. Brievik is notable, but he is not notable as an admirer or commentator on people, he is notable as a political militant who attacked civilians and children inspired by a set of politics. I think it is fair to state his interest on a given influence if sourced verifiably and subject to consensus. But drive-by behavior is another matter, as is giving undue weight, in particular in a BLP to inclusions that open the door to guilt by association.

I say we stop making the perfect the enemy of the good, and let the case-by-case consensus decide who is notable and who is not. I also say hunt down and block those who are vandalizing unrelated articles with Breivik's crap. --Cerejota (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear why prominent reliable sources discussing this issue are being rejected as reliable sources - for example the New York Times and in Norwayt itself among others Dagbladet. Reference to the possible contributory role of the Counterjihadi internauts is not "drive by behaviour". It's a matter already in the public domain. Opbeith (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• note - I also removed the see also Anders Behring Breivik from Geert Wilders BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As a followup to Griswaldo's point, if there is scholarly literature regarding someone related to this point, then I wouldn't object to it being mentioned in his/her biography. For that matter, if there was consistent discussion on the topic spanning more than a few days or weeks, then that might provide relevant material. But when we're talking about a WP:BLP, and it's just the fact that someone was mentioned or quoted a few times in a 1,500 page manifesto, then I become quite concerned. Jayjg 01:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. Pundits and other political commentators, especially those who find people like Robert Spencer distasteful, will of course jump on this kind of thing make commentary about it for political reasons. News organizations will also include the information, but that does not make it particularly meaningful yet. Another reason why we really ought to exercise more patience and discretion here when it comes to news events and living people.Griswaldo (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We should probably keep an eye on Special:WhatLinksHere/Anders_Behring_Breivik. Morrissey is on there, for gosh sakes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just gone so far as to claim that inserting this information into biographies of living people is such a clear violation of BLP that it meets the 3RR exemption, on the article Srđa Trifković. We'll see, I guess, what happens there. Appreciate advice from others if you think I'm going too far. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I deleted a lot of the mentions I found on that list in other BLPs and in other non-BLP entries. I have also questioned some others. For instance Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami seems not to be notable at all, but for the fact that someone supposedly representing this group, if it even exists, claimed responsibility for Breveik's actions early on before the perp had been identified. What links to Breveik should be continually monitored as Peregrine suggests.Griswaldo (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Some attention to No true Scotsman would also be welcome in the related BLP fallout here. People are insisting on inserting an example of Bill O'Reilly's claim that Breveik is not a Christian into the article.Griswaldo (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Something that I wish that some of you would consider is the possibility that the side effect from the "get the Big Bad POV pushers and BLP violators" mentality is that it's spreading the problem. I know from experience that many of these editors, who are rather inexperienced with our policy and culture, will simply move to other articles (or create new ones, usually as forks)when they receive significant resistance. I'm not actually trying to blame shift here, and I'm not trying to justify the bad content or bad editor behavior; I'm simply attempting to point out that sometimes a carrot works as well as a stick. Keeping the stick around, in your back pocket, is fine. However, these are motivated people who find themselves looking at our editing interface... giving them some guidance on a good direction to take helps them, helps the encyclopedia, and over the long run likely leads to less work for you, to those of you who feel the need to police this. Regardless, fear not. In a month or two, after the hubub has died down, myself and others who are part of "the cleanup crew" will be able to get in and... well, clean up (if there's anything left to clean, which there usually isn't).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You have simply not dealt with the issue that the political and philosophical influences on Breivik are discussed in serious reporting in reliable sources. This discussion appears to be focused on the idea that relevant public debate should not be mentioned in a Misplaced Pages article when it reflects unfavourably on the article's subject. Opbeith (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody out there in the real world has actually "dealt with the issue that the political and philosophical influences on Breveikk" in a meaningful way yet period. Right now we have news organizations simply reporting on the people mentioned in his manifesto and people with political axes to grind opining about it. You need to wait for some quality sources, and when that happens they need to be discussing the other individuals directly. In other words if someone is writing about Robert Spencer and thinks it is meaningful to discuss how he influenced Breveik then you have a source that says that this is a notable aspect of Robert Spencer's legacy as opposed to simply identifying the fact that some criminal quoted him several times in an online manifesto. Now, I happen to believe that just that type of thing will happen in a matter of time, but until it does (and after it does) please respect BLP. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to be paying too close attention to the real world. Here's Jostein Gaarder and Thomas Hylland Eriksen in the NYT again on the subject of the Counterjihad squad http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/opinion/Gaarder-Eriksen.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Gaarder&st=cse. In Matthew Taylor's article at The Guardian he reports Paul Ray of Lionheart, who was involved with EDL before arguing with them: "said it appeared Breivik had drawn inspiration from some of his ideas and writings. "It's really pointing at us. All these things he's been talking about are linked to us," he said. "It's like he's created this whole thing around us." (adding that Ray said he condemned wholeheartedly what had happened and offered his deepest sympathies to Norway and the relatives of the dead, but that he did believe Islam was a threat to Europe)."http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/27/norway-paul-ray-lionheart-blog And here's Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post: Jewish Daily Forward quotes the Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman as saying "Breivik was clearly influenced by an ideological movement both in the United States and Europe that is rousing public fear by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith," noting in his statement that the ADL has reported previously on Spencer and Geller’s anti-Muslim agitation. Doug Saunders's "‘Eurabia’ opponents scramble for distance from anti-Muslim murderer" in The Globe and Mail: "Frequently cited, quoted and praised in his manifesto are such figures as Bruce Bawer, author of the bestseller While Europe Slept; Geert Wilders, the Dutch anti-Muslim provocateur and leader of his country’s anti-immigration Freedom Party; Mark Steyn, the Canadian columnist and author of America Alone: The End of the World As we Know it; the British columnist Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan; Gisele Littman, the author (under the pseudonym Bat Ye’or) of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis; and the anti-immigration blogs Gates of Vienna, Atlas Shrugs and Jihad Watch. None of these authors have advocated violence. But their warnings of impending Islamic takeover – a concept that is widely dismissed as implausible in conventional scholarly and political circles – sometimes carry an urgency that might seem to invite angry responses. ... she (Littman / Bat Ye'or) warned that her ideas, and those of fellow authors and leaders on the anti-Muslim right, could continue to have violent repercussions if Mr. Breivik proves influential. “I’m afraid that this is something that other people will imitate.”" None of these reliable sources appear to be hesitating like Misplaced Pages. Opbeith (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I might add to Opbeith's comments that these authors may claim that they "don't advocate violence against Muslims", but when you carefully scrutinize their rhetoric, you can easily find they do in fact justify specific acts of violence, whether it be the invasion of Gaza by the Israeli military, or the defense of the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, or the violent boarding of the Gaza Flotilla. Furthermore, their comment boards are filled with such rhetoric, despite the fact that they claim to moderate the comments. I might also add that these authors are routinely advocating other measures which while not exactly violent, are nonetheless extreme: not only opposing immigration by Muslims, but also the forcible deportation of Muslims, the denial of American Muslims US military service, supporting a Constitutional proviso to limit mosque-building, much less comments about how the only moderate Muslim is one who denounces the faith.

In response to Griswaldo, the Robert Spencer article currently says "In a manifesto which denounced multiculturalism and declared Islam to be a threat to the West, Anders Behring Breivik, the perpetrator of the July 22, 2011, massacre of 77 people in Norway, quoted Spencer 64 times." Nothing more is added. Does reporting this statement a form of a fact, with nothing added to it necessarily constitute an guilt by association in and of itself? How so? I'm not convinced. By that standard, we might also ask if the mention of Spencer's influence by the late Paul Weyrich also constitutes an Association fallacy? I encourage you (and anyone else) to respond to the regarding Spencer below, and elaborate on this rationale. Jemiljan (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no "serious scholarly focus on Breivik" is debatable. There is no book or peer-reviewed journal articles, but this is because of the recent nature of the event, but Brievik's politics are not new, they have been addressed extensively in partisan and non-partisan sources, and their are recognized experts on these topics who are capable of making serious scholarly commentary on the issue. Decrying partisan sources for *just* being partisan is something that Jayjg has opposed in the past (see for example New antisemitism), so I am surprised he agrees with this opposition. Again, we are making the perfect the enemy of the good. We have to deal with the sources we have *right now* and stop crystal balling. When more reliable sources emerge, we can then fix it, but there is incredible interest on this topic and the web of related topics around it, and we must be fair to our readers. If all we have are short articles in reliable sources, then we go with that. Later when fixing up for GA, we can move forward differently. Is not that hard, really.

As to Jayjg's position on the different edits, I am have no opinion either away *except* that the issue she raises should be raised in discussion in each of those articles - and that there are no systemic BLP issues here. Guilt-by-association is a pervasive and very old political technique from any perspective, and the way to solve it is by conscientious editing, not noticeboarding. I already showed that Jayjg lumped together diffs that showed different kinds of edits - that is different problems or points of contention - yet he claimed incorrectly they were the same. One I think was a valid BLP noticeboard issue - the driveby see also in Geert Wilders, but the three others are clearly not a matter for noticeboard attention. Put bluntly, Jayjg is forum shopping. I hope he chooses to engage the editors of those articles directly and raise the issues there, rather than going behind their backs to a noticeboard.--Cerejota (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, and these should be handled on a case-by-case basis. In the case of the Robert Spencer (author) article, I do think that the argument that Jayjg herself made above applies, as Spencer has been very public in addressing the matter. I am also supportive of mentioning both the criticisms and responses in a concise manner. I would appreciate your input on the Spencer discussion board.Jemiljan (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, rather than "forum shopping", I've brought a systemic BLP issue to exactly one forum, the correct one (WP:BLPN), and most BLP regulars agree with me that it's a BLP issue. This is not "going behind the backs" of anyone, but exactly the correct procedure. Please do not post any more inaccurate ad hominem nonsense here, and instead focus on the issue, about which a consensus that disagrees with you appears to have developed. Jayjg 04:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What consensus? Opbeith (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The one that Qwyrxian, Off2riorob, Griswaldo, Ohms law, Cullen328, Dweller, Chzz and I agree with, and with which you apparently disagree. I don't count Cerejota's vote, because it was just irrelevant and inaccurate ad hominem nonsense, nor do I count Jemiljan's, because he's an extremely inexperienced editor who merely wants to tie Brevik to Robert Spencer (author). Jayjg 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the consensus of the people who agree with you. Opbeith (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the consensus of uninvolved editors in this section. Did I miss someone? Jayjg 19:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, Jayjg , I believe that you are being a bit hasty judging my intentions. As to whether I am an "extremely inexperienced" editor, so what? I have yet to see you address my point. The fact is, I have edited the one page in question for several years now, and have worked with other editors to build consensus and revamp it after flagrant edit wars and even vandalism. While my activity may be limited in scope in comparison to yours, you have no right to assume that your opinion is superior on such an account.

To be clear, I only specifically was discussing the issue vis a vis one page alone: Robert Spencer (author). It is for this reason, that I think the point made by Cerejota that a case-by-case judgement rather than a sweeping one is in order.

Despite your assertion, my intention in this specific case is not simply to "tie Spencer to Breivik" alone, as I have made it very clear that I want to include Spencer's mention of Spencer's own very public responses, which Off2riorob alluded to above. Spencer in particular has now conducted interviews and comments in third-party WP:RS sources as is noted. Would you care to address this fact, rather than simply generalize and discount the dissenters to your self-proclaimed rather sweeping "consensus"? Specifically, would you kindly address whether or not if the person in question has in fact publicly addressed the issue, as Spencer has, then does it remain in the realm of an Association fallacy? I don't believe so, and for this reason, I would like to see this very specific facet of this issue addressed, before you proclaim some sort of fiat.Jemiljan (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Add me. Within a week there is no possible way that anything reliable can be sourced about this event other than the bare facts of the case itself. The jottings of the perpetrator reflect on the perpetrator alone. John lilburne (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You've just dismissed the references I've provided as if they weren't even there. Surely it's invalid to build a consensus based on unwillingness to consider evidence material to the discussion. And this incident didn't happen out of nowhere. The fostering of anti-Islam sentiment by the counterjihadists has been a concern for a long time, partly for the very reason that it was believed likely to encourage action by someone like Breivik - hardly surprising that people have offered legitimate comments so quickly. Please, read the references and then, if you will, join the consensus. Opbeith (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

....and yet when one of the persons named responds publicly to the matter in a reliably sourced interview and discusses this issue? How is that not a bare fact? It seems to me that in those specific instances, it automatically extends beyond the mere "jottings of the perpetrator" reflecting upon himself alone.Jemiljan (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And? Commenting that X says that Y is a load of balls is simply adding to a false controversy. Breivik apparently terms himself a Christian, and no matter how many prelates one get to deny that it is, one won't get to add Breivik to the Benedict XVI article. Others say he's some sort of liberal and no matter how many Democrats one gets to say that he isn't doesn't allow someone to add Breivik BLP articles of Democrats. John lilburne (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

John, Spencer has now not only responded via his blog, but is the subject of four separate interviews: on the BBC (starting at the 8-minute mark), on Michael Coren's show, and with Alan Colmes, and on the Frank Wuco show on Fox News. Were you to review them for yourself, I believe that you would find his comments go well beyond "x says y is a load of balls", and in consideration of this extensive coverage. Heck, I am even willing to add to any mention of this the Town Hall article that specifically defends Spencer.

Does mention of Spencer's repeated and lengthy responses on the matter simply add to a "false controversy"? How so? More to the point, how is this specific format in violation of WP:BLP? Does a careful, succinct, reporting of this specific scenario still constitute an Association fallacy in violation of WP:BLP? How so?Jemiljan (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me put this rather more forcefully, as individuals who claim there is a consensus are deleting edits without responding to talk page arguments. It's simply not good enough to dismiss reference to this public discussion out of hand as an attempt to establish "guilt by association" and ignore the evidence.

Discussion of the influences claimed by Breivik has been the subject of reporting by reliable sources. The role of the counterjihad movement in promoting anti-Islamic sentiment on the internet and in public debate generally has previously been noted and, not surprisingly now that a number of the more prominent members of the group have been claimed by Breivik as ideological influences, the media in Norway and the US are discussing the group's contribution to the climate of anti-Muslim opinion which allegedly motivated him.

I'm happy to concede to legitimate arguments. I have not reverted off2riobob's deletion of a direct quote from Srdja Trifkovic from 2083 because although it's clearly apposite I understand the argument that 2083 is currently considered a primary source and Trifkovic is notionally another person being quoted who is not the author (I do reject the reference to "soapboxing"). But discussion of the counterjihad influences and Trifkovic's own "herohood" is not the casual "guilt by association" it's glibly dismissed as. Trifkovic is identified by Dagbladet as one of Breivik's heroes and ideological "role models" - language issues discussed at the Talk page. His membership of the counterjihad movement is well documented and their role in fostering the climate of anti-Muslim hatred and influencing Breivik has been publicly discussed (and referenced by me above - apart I think from the Scott Shane article at NYT). Trifkovic does not have claim to special consideration as a presumptively innocent party in the area of inciting anti-Muslim feeling. earlier this year the Canadian Government refused him entry to Canada under the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act because of his role as spokesperson for the 1992-1995 Bosnian Serb government, a position he held throughout the period in which they were systematically killing Bosnian Muslims, including at Srebrenica. (When he was refused admission Trifkovic's appeal to his associates to lobby the Canadian government for a reversal of their decision was circulated amongst counterjihadist group members.) Please deal with the argument that this is not a case of insinuated guilt, it's reporting of a serious issue relating to a subject which Misplaced Pages should not take it upon itself to censor. Until serious consideration has been given to that issue it's spurious to suggest that a consensus has been achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opbeith (talk • contribs)

Great, let's put this "more forcefully". Uninvolved editors, including Qwyrxian, Off2riorob, Griswaldo, Ohms law, Cullen328, Dweller, Chzz and John lilburne, indicate that adding this material is inappropriate and a BLP issue. Involved editors, including User:Cerejota (who has been extensively editing the Anders Behring Breivik article), User:Jemiljan (who mostly edits the Robert Spencer (author) article from a negative perspective), and User:Opbeith (you), who has extensively edited the Srđa Trifković article primarily from a negative perspective), disagree. So yeah, consensus pretty much has been achieved, and it's "spurious" to suggest otherwise. Jayjg 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg , please allow me to clarify: I am not advocating that mention of Brievik's quotations be inserted into each and every article concerning those he has quoted. For the most part, I am with you on this. Where I disagree is when and if the person in question has in fact responded publicly to the incident. If so, then is a brief, carefully worded passage mentioning this incident is in violation of WP:BLP? How so? Your comments about the extent to which I am "involved", or that you think my edits are "negative" are moot and don't address this valid point. Please address this specific point in a cogent fashion. Jemiljan (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Jemiljan, the BLP issues have been made quite clear, "in a cogent fashion", by many editors above, including me. Feel free to review those comments. Jayjg 04:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, perhaps I am wrong, but where has you or anyone else specifically addressed my point about inclusion when and if the person in question has responded? I'm sorry, perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see any attempt by you to address this specific point. Simply telling me that it is based on a "consensus" that doesn't clearly address this specific situation in any meaningful fashion strikes me as circular reasoning, not a cogent discussion. The only editors I see addressing this point are Off2riorob (whose position is more nuanced), and John lilburne. So allow me to reiterate my question again: if the person quoted has actively engaged in an ensuing public discussion on a matter in reliable, third-party sources (and not just in passing as John lilburne alluded to) repeatedly and at length, is a very concise mention of this, followed by references to said responses (plural) in violation of WP:BLP? How so?

Again do note that I am not advocating mentioning Brievik on each and every article of the people he's quoted by virtue of that fact alone, I am fully in agreement with all of the other editors on this matter. Yet what I am referring to clearly goes beyond this by virtue of the fact that Spencer in particular has now given four separate public interviews on the matter (see my reply to John lilburne above for specific references). in view of the fact that Spencer has not only addressed Breivik's quotations, but also criticized the media frenzy, one of the "uninvolved" editors you've cited as supporting this "consensus", namely Qwyrxian, has now agreed with me on the Talk:Robert_Spencer_(author) page. The same "uninvolved" editor has suggested, and I have agreed, that such a mention must be brief, no more than two sentences, and be very carefully worded, to maintain WP:NPOV. So once again, please explain how in consideration of the fact that the person quoted has responded repeatedly and at length, and if the proposed wording is very concise and to the point, how that would be an association fallacy in violation of WP:BLP.

Jayjg, my understanding of you saying that I have edited the Srda Trifkovic article "from a negative perspective" is that you deprecate my inclusion of information that reflects disfavourably on the subject. I came across the article as saying almost nothing negative about him. If you examine his CV, you might see that it's not unreasonable to include information about his work as a spokesman for and advisor to war criminals and a more recent career as a member of a group propounding extremist views about ethnic and religious minorities. The absence of negative information is not neutrality. You also seem to suggest that "involvement" as you describe it and "knowledge of a subject" as I describe it suffices to disqualify an opinion. But that's by the by. The important thing is that you suggest that my "editing from a negative perspective" means that the evidence I have offered is ipso facto irrelevant. That's what I would like you to justify, a little bit less flippantly. Opbeith (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you believe you were editing the Srđa Trifković article from a negative perspective for a good reason - that has no impact on my point regarding the views of uninvolved editors vs. involved editors. Jayjg 04:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Jayjg, editors with knowledge of the topic, who conceivably have read much more sources and hence have a concrete sense of what the WP:V and WP:RS issues are, take a nuanced view on the topics. What is so surprising about this? This is nothing new in wikipedia. Real discussions happen in article talk, not noticeboards unless there are clear cut BLP vios, which there aren't any (unless you count the see also driveby which has been reverted.

Also, Jayjg, this is not a vote - its is a discussion, and you claiming it is a vote is hilarious funny. If anything I said is seen as an ad hominem I sincerely apologize, and would gladly strikethrough anything you feel offend by, but I did a careful review of my words and I can't see were I didn't focus on content positions. I haven't called you names or called your views invalid - simply unconvincing or contradictory. This is normal human discourse to express disagreement, not ad hominem - I am puzzled by your equating disagreement with a personal attack as it makes no sense, one can disagree without attacking the person at all. However you have indeed attacked me and other editors rather than our positions on content. I would have hoped that the community's harsh reaction to your previous bad behavior in this and other respects would have allowed you to reflect on the negative aspects of your contributions, rather than use your many positive contributions as a stick with which to beat newbies (such as you do above) and divert discussions from what they should be focused upon, which is content. --Cerejota (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, most of your comment was again ad hominem nonsense, which doesn't really fool anyone. Stop talking about me, and start talking about the issue at hand. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg 04:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll just add my voice to the long list of uninvolved editors here who see that it's a clear BLP violation to devote space in a bio to say that ABB wrote something positive about the subject. Yes, it's sourced that ABB said this, but it's not in any way apparent that the info is notable when understanding the person (e.g. Bruce Bawer), and it certainly serves to defame. We can't do this.

I'd also like to point out that some of you are making this way too much of a personal issue. (Cerejota, for instance, has mentioned Jayjg more than ABB in discussion above.) The issue at hand is, should "ABB liked this guy" be in a BLP?, and it's clear to everyone uninvolved that it shouldn't. If you instead want to criticize individual editors, then I guess if that's your thing, you're going to do it... but it doesn't advance the issue at all. – Quadell 16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is also whether when the person quoted publicly responds, not merely in passing, but conducts a number of interviews on the matter.

I mentioned Jayjg because he is the one raising the points - I would like to know when did saying "So-and-So is wrong." is a personal attack? To focus on the content, I find it significant that only those who disagree with the position that there is a blacket issue here are providing arguments based on the actual content. For example, I clearly examined the diffs provided "By the One We Shall Not Mention Unless There Are Declarations of Ad Hominem Attacks", and argued that while some were clearly bad edits under BLP, others were not - and further more that these are issues that should be addressed not by "uninvolved" editors, but by editors involve din the editing itself. Pointing out an attempt at forum shopping is entirely legitimate and related to the quality of the content. --Cerejota (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, I'm really trying to take your opinions seriously here. But you're not talking about adding ABB material into articles anymore; you're talking about an editor you don't like, and your "One We Shall Not Mention" name is frankly childish. You continue to call this BLP issue "forum-shopping", even though this is the only forum I see being used, and that has been pointed out to you already. I can't tell what you're trying to gain here, besides complain about Jayjg... and I don't see how that has anything to do with inserting defamatory material into BLPs. – Quadell 13:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My two cents - I think I like Jemiljan's logic. Spencer is primarily notable for Islamic criticism, hatred, opposition (whatever you want to call it); thus it seems reasonable that ABB, who is notable for the/a same/similar thing, citing Spenser is relevant to his notability. I appreciate the "guilt by association argument" and I think it would apply if Spencer's and ABB's notability were entirely different (e.g. Davidelah's example here of Al-Qaeda associating with Noam Chomsky).

Furthermore, I don't see consensus for exclusion established here. I think the onus is really on the "excluders" to demonstrate that what the New York Times thought was notable is in fact not notable. NickCT (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nick, here's a better comparison. Ted Kaczynski the Unabomber. His manifesto references the ideas of Eric Hoffer and Jacques Ellul directly but you'll find no reference to Kaczynski in their entries. Why is that? Consider this from another angle entirely. Ellul and Hoffer are notable for their ideas, but Kaczynski is not notable for his ideas, but for his murderous acts. Likewise people like Robert Spencer are notable for their ideas (however despicable those ideas are), while Breveik is not. He's notable for his murderous acts. Doing what you and others are proposing is to artificially suggest a causal connection between specific ideas espoused by others and the murderous acts of these individuals. That's the problem here. I don't see us doing this in other examples like the Unabomber, and I don't think we should start doing it now.Griswaldo (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo - I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. I can say that ABB's notability (i.e. a terrorist against Islam) and Spencer's notability (i.e. a writer/activist against Islam) are fundamentally similar. Ted Kaczynski was a notable terrorist trying to bring down the industrial-technological system. Were either Eric Hoffer or Jacques Ellul notable for arguing for the take down of the industrial-technological system? I know Hoffer wasn't. NickCT (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Opbeith has provided some interesting sources above: Jostein Gaarder in the New York Times , a Guardian article about an English right-wing nutcase , and a Washington Post opinion piece on Breivik's manifesto. While I agree with Jostein Gaarder and generally think just as poorly of anti-Islam crusaders as I think of pro-Islam holy warriors (and am thus perhaps not neutral here), I do not think this is sufficient to meet the standard of WP:DUE and WP:BLP for inclusion in BLP articles. These sources are about Breivik, his crime and his motivations. They are not about the respective people, and I agree with Griswaldo that there is no evidence yet that Breivik is in any way relevant to these various people. Hans Adler 15:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I don't mean to plug this again, but I honestly believe that for some of the people mentioned in the manifesto this incident may become a relevant part of their narratives and reflected as such in scholarship and other quality sources. I just don't see anything remotely like that right now.Griswaldo (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So what you guys are saying is that articles about ABB that mention Spencer, don't mean that ABB is notable to Spencer. What you want is an article about Spencer that mentions ABB? This seems like a sorta artificial goal post. The fact is, we have an RS that has noted the association; hence, the association is verifiable & notable. In terms of WP:DUE, Spencer isn't really a hugely notable character to begin with; hence, mentioning minor associations like these wouldn't seem to violate WP:DUE. NickCT (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck (of course)

Editors are edit warring over tags on the Glenn Beck article. A concern is that it is recentism and that led to the first edit war (that I was not involved in). The upcomming edit war is over NPOV (which I am involved in). Basically, Beck said something offensive and it got picked up in the press. He compared the kids being massacred in Norway to kids attending a Hitler youth camp. Pretty damn offensive. However, Beck as clear that he was against the terrorist action. The article does not make that clear. The ambiguity could easily lead the reader to believe that his only take on the matter was that the kids were deserving victims. I made it clear why I put the tag in and what I thought needed to be done to remove it. Since it is a BLP I wil continue to revert with no regard for 3/rr. I believe

• The tag should be restored immediately.
• User:AndyTheGrump should be blocked for subverting POV on a BLP by edit warring over a tag and ignoring talk
• User:Helvetica Should sikmply be warned about BLP, POV, and NPA since he is newCptnono (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

″Basically, Beck said something offensive and it got picked up in the press... Pretty damn offensive. However, Beck as clear that he was against the terrorist action. The article does not make that clear″. Nope. The article did exactly that, before Cptnono, reverted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely disregard. Andy fixed it for the most part and I did not realize that it added the required line. I am modifying the line.Cptnono (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't 'fix it'. It wasn't broken before Cptnono and I arrived. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

While I don't believe that every display of egregious idiocy by a public figure needs to be, or should be, documented on Misplaced Pages, this one drew attention from across the political spectrum and should be reported, without undue emphasis on whatever after-the-fact contortions or apologetics Beck went through to try to cover himself, and without an interminable litany of comments restating the obvious point of the comment's unspeakability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Xiaxue

Our article about the highly successful, but highly controversial, Singaporean celebrity blogger Xiaxue has an extensive history of BLP violations, ranging from blatant libellous vandalism to attempts to skew facts to put her in a bad light (such as an "Impact of Xiaxue on youths in Singapore" section) to insertion of false information (such as that she had died). The subject has publicly complained about the state of her Misplaced Pages biography. I have rewritten the article, but unregistered editors continue to vandalise it. Please check that my rewrite is BLP-compliant, then monitor the article for vandalism and BLP violations. Long-term semi-protection may be appropriate. I also filed a peer review to prepare the article for a GA nomination; constructive feedback would be appreciated. Thank you. 谢谢. Terima kasih. Arigato. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to FloNight for permanently semi-protecting the article! That would really help its pursuit of GA status. Anyone else reading this can still help by checking the article for BLP compliance and.commenting at its peer review --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman (2)

Fjordman is an anonymous online blogger. Some reports that are mentioning the blogger have been published following the 2011 Norway attacks, all (to my knowledge) focusing on a potential link between Fjordman, Anders Behring Breivik, and the attacks. There is disagreement on (a) the use of self-published sources in the text (see WP:ABOUTSELF), and (b) whether WP:BLP1E applies in this case. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fjordman (3rd nomination).  Cs32en Talk to me  14:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

See previous section on this noticeboard regarding the BLP issues, article discussion page (multiple sections) and article history. I believe several issues are being conflated: (1) the amount of weight to give the Breivik connection (the topic of the previous section here and of previous discussion on the article talk page; (2) notability of the subject (the topic of the AfD, and I note that in addition to sources previously present in the article--which has survived 2 prior AfDs--there have been for some days now references to newspaper articles which discuss Fjordman in some detail and are not only about Breivik's admiration for him); (3) whether the article relies overmuch on Fjordman's own writings (and on other blogs?), a concern which does not seem to me to be appropriate to this noticeboard, and in any case I disagree with the poster here and with the editor who has been radically shortening the article to eliminate them. In any event, I started a new section on the article talk page in addition to commenting at the AfD; but I sincerely hope that my efforts to keep the discredited rumor out of the article and to avoid undue weight on Breivik in the article have not given the impression there is a lack of material on Fjordman and that the article thereby fails notability. That would be an unfortunate irony. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Manning

There is a dispute on Bradley Manning about whether he hold British citizenship or not. User:Auerfeld and I have presented solid evidence, including references to British nationality law, that show that Bradley Manning holds British citizenship by descent. Two other editors hold strongly to the opinion that he is not in fact a British citizen. One of these two editors is an administrator and this administrator asked on the discussion page to not change the infobox again after they reverted it to read that Manning was only an American citizen. I consider that this user was speaking with the authority of an administrator when making this request. Please see the current discussion page and discussion page archives for Bradley Manning to see all of this for your self. Both sides have maintained civility during the disagreement. We are at an impasse. Since the evidence so strongly favours the position that he has British citizenship whereas we are unable to add that to the page, I am referring the matter here. Robert Brockway (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To help define (if possible) the controversy, his infobox has had both "American" and "American & British" listed in the Nationality line. The Citizenship line has been largely untouched. Moreover, his legal citizenship (and nationality) status is not an issue with regard to the court-martial charges and the military courts/authorities do not need to make a determination. (The "citizenship" issue arose, in part, because certain parties wanted the British government to do something about the conditions of imprisonment -- not that the US military could or would respond.) So, with these factors in mind, perhaps a two track listing in the infobox can be used. Something like this: Nationality -- "American". Citizenship -- "Dual: American and British". (This assumes we, as WP editors, can reach a conclusion about the legal question of citizenship.) --S. Rich (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC) PS: I have inserted my proposed solution into the article infobox.15:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Some confusion here, I think. In the case of democracies, citizenship and nationality are essentially synomymous: Bradley is a British citizen as well as an American citizen, ergo he is a dual national. Nationality is the term more often used in international law. In Bradley's case, an individual with dual British and American citizenship - and therefore dual British and American nationality - is awaiting courts-martial in the United States. The fact that legal process is taking place in one state has no impact on his citizenship status in, or nationality of, the other - the determination of this is solely in the hands of the state concerned (ie. the United Kingdom). Bradley's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom has been confirmed by a Government Minister in the House of Commons and has been reported as such by numerous secondary sources (I've listed 6 on the talk page). As such, the proposed solution can only confuse a situation which is, in reality, rather straightforward.

It is certainly the case, incidentally, that action on the British front - which resulted in two separate representations being made to the US on a diplomatic level - contributed to Bradley Manning being moved out of solitary confinement at the beginning of May. For this reason, his citizenship status is highly pertinent to his[REDACTED] entry and I'm not sure why there is confusion about this, since it has been so well reported by multiple sources. Auerfeld (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, can I take issue with this: ″This assumes we, as WP editors, can reach a conclusion about the legal question of citizenship″. This is exactly what we should not be doing. This would constitute WP:OR of the worst kind. If WP:RS reaches a conclusion, or provides an opinion on the matter, we can cite it, but we cannot decide this for ourselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - this was my understanding of the situation. Given that Bradley's citizenship status has been reported by the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/britain-to-reassert-worries-about-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-mannings-treatment/2011/04/05/AFXo4GlC_story.html), The Guardian (repeatedly), New York Magazine and The Telegraph (among others), my understanding is that this should be sufficient for Misplaced Pages purposes. Auerfeld (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You are reinforcing my point -- that this "determination" is a legal issue that we should not resolve on our own. I noted that the talk page discussion (and edit war) was sloppy in the sense that the Nationality infobox line was being edited, but the WP discussion revolved around Citizenship. I am trying to point out (inartfully) that when we say "In the case of democracies, citizenship and nationality are essentially synomymous ... ergo ..." we are conducting our own WP:OR and improper synthesis. And why did we get wrapped around the axle in this issue? Largely because sympathizers wanted the British government to intervene and WP RS was presented to reinforce a particular position. --S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary: the legal issue has long been resolved and has been reported as such by numerous sources. I am questioning why the Infobox on Bradley Manning's Misplaced Pages entry does not reflect this. If you would rather the entry listed Bradley as a dual citizen and left nationality out entirely, then that's fine - but to list him solely as being an American national is both innacurate and contrary to what reliable sources are reporting. To the best of my knowledge, there are no references that contradict the argument I am putting forward here (you will note that the WaPo article referenced above specifically talks about David Coombs' statement of February and puts it in context), but there are plenty that support it. If you can find some that put forward the opposing argument, then this discussion would make a little more sense than it does presently.

On this basis, I am going to delete the nationality line in the infobox. You are welcome to frame an argument for Bradley being a British citizen but not a British national if you wish, but I am fairly sure that would fall under WP:OR. Auerfeld (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually there has not been a legal determination of the legal issue by any court of law. (And there probably never will be. E.g., Manning is a person subject to the jurisdiction of the UCMJ, which is federal law enacted by Congress in accordance with the authority provided by the Constitution. The court-martial does not care if he is American, British, Kurdish, Welsh, or Whateverish.) This is a debate regarding which RS should be used to describe Manning, and to justify some sort of inquiry by the British government. For my part, I am perfectly happy if he is described as a dual citizen in the infobox. I was uncomfortable with the ill-defined nature of the discussion and the use of the Nationality line in the infobox. My proposed solution -- to use both lines -- was set forth as a compromise. (And please forgive me for my poorly presented discussion.)--S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I nearly made a mention of the terms citizenship and nartionality in my original post here - I should have. While it is true that nationality can mean something other than citizenship in English (many people claim to be of Scotish nationality but British citizenship, for example), in this discussion both sides have been using the terms citizenship and nationality interchangeably.

Re the compromose suggested by Srich, I'd be happy to have his citizenship list as both and his nationality as American in the infobox. Robert Brockway (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If Robert is happy with this compromise so am I - pleased we could reach a resolutiion. Auerfeld (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

NOTE to other contributors -- the issue has returned to Manning's talk page.--S. Rich (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article talk page, but just noting here for the record that Manning's lawyer explicitly said in February that Manning does not consider himself a British citizen: "There has been some discussion regarding PFC Bradley Manning's citizenship. PFC Manning does not hold a British passport, nor does he consider himself a British citizen. He is an American, and is proud to be serving in the United States Army. His current confinement conditions are troubling to many both here in the United States and abroad. This concern, however, is not a citizenship issue."

Auerfeld (talk · contribs) has said she is leading a British campaign to have him recognized as a British citizen, and therefore wants to add that he is one to the infobox here. She has been advised about COI, 3RR, the lawyer's statement, BLP, and UNDUE. SlimVirgin 23:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is that Bradley *has* been recognised as a UK citizen for some time - it was the subject of a debate in Parliament, which resulted in actual action on Bradley's behalf. This was back in April so that part of the campaign has been over and done with for quite a while now! I'd be more than happy for someone else to be making the case here, but the point is that you are making a decision to exclude pertinent information that has been verified and widely reported on a basis of your own devising. Is that how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work? Auerfeld (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you discuss this on the talk page, please, to avoid a forest fire? There is a campaign in the UK to have him accepted as British. You are organizing it. The campaigners have raised it in parliament. The campaigners have asked the British government to intervene on his behalf. BUT (important BUT), Manning himself has said he is not British. He doesn't want to be British. He has not asked the British government to intervene. He was born and raised in America and is serving in the American army, and he has said through his lawyers that that's what he wants to be. You can't make your campaign the voice of Misplaced Pages or Bradley Manning. Please continue on the talk page. SlimVirgin 00:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm more than happy to discuss on the talk page (and am), but you're now raising questions about Misplaced Pages policy on reporting nationality that I have a feeling are going to bring us back here. Bradley Manning's British citizenship has been reported by a number of reputable sources, both in the US and UK (and beyond, actually). Mainstream newspapers like the Washington Post and The Guardian have produced reports that are themselves balanced, taking into account David Coombs' statement and coming to the conclusion that this does not change the legal position as far Bradley Manning's dual citizenship status is concerned. Given that there is no comparable selection of reputable sources making the contrary argument, my feeling is that it is not the job of Misplaced Pages editors to determine whether or not those judgements are correct.

Essentially, you are arguing that Bradley needs to affirm his british citizenship in order for it to be included in his biographical details. I've looked at the relevant guidelines and cannot see that your argument is supported there: self-identification is required for descriptions that impact on the religious or sexual identity of living persons, or that might put a living subject in a bad light. I cannot see that citizenship/nationality fits into any of those three categories. The Manual of Style for Biography is also clear that citizenship for Misplaced Pages purposes is to be determined on the basis of the nationality laws of the countries concerned. You do now need to engage with these points, but where you do it is up to you, of course. Auerfeld (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey Giuliano

• Geoffrey Giuliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I reverted some rather, um, questionable edits on Jim Nabours by User:Oldsmobile. I noticed that the user had edited Geoffrey Giuliano quite a bit. That article is a mess. I've never heard of Giuliano, but his article seems to be stuffed full of uncited trivia and poorly cited allegations. I don't have time to look at it more closely right now, but if anyone wants to do a serious pruning, please do. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

David Odonkor

Continuous sectainian vandalism being added to the biography of David Odonkor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=David_Odonkor&action=historysubmit&diff=441883565&oldid=441883263 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clashrock (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for a week due to the large amount of vandalism it has recently been a target of. I also reverted back to the last stable copy - it will likely need a thorough check to make all of the vandalism and BLP violations have been scrubbed. --Jezebel'sPonyo 15:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Jane Fonda

• Jane Fonda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to get some feedback on the following addition: . It is being argued that since the original source of the quote cannot be found it cannot be included in the article, despite the numerous references to it on many WP:RS's and a lack of any sources that challenge it. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages actually prefers secondary and WP:Independent sources for things like this; they show that the quotation is worth mentioning. The absence of (for example) a publicly available recording of the original speech is therefore irrelevant.

If the fact that she said this had been seriously disputed in reliable sources, then that would need to be mentioned, or considered as a reason to remove it under WP:UNDUE. However, the mere fact that the WP:PRIMARY source isn't easily available is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This has all the hallmarks of a phony quotation. There are no identifiable contemporaneous news reports found that verify the quote, or even that Fonda gave a speech at the supposed site (Michigan State University). In fact, these "reliable" sources give at least two different dates (1969 and 1970, typically on November 22, the anniversary of the JFK assassination, which seems a bit convenient), and at least two different locations (Duke and MSU). It looks like the first press reports of it turn up in 1972, after Fonda's notorious sojourn to North Vietnam. Fonda said and did a lot of stupid things, and they were generally reported by the press as they happened. The reliably-documented ones are all we need to write a comprehensive article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a well-referenced fact, to me; it's widely reported in numerous reliable sources - to revert it as "unsourced or poorly sourced" when it has a book ref and NY Times isn't good. It might not be true, but it's not our job to judge that; the text actually stated According to several sources (indicating the potential doubt). If there's some RS actually claiming it might not be true, then fair enough, we could explain that - possibly a footnote?

As to whether it is appropriate per WP:UNDUE...that's another matter entirely, and could be discussed on the talk page. But from what I've seen, I don't know why you think it isn't reliably documented. We don't need to work out who originally reported it.

But I do suggest more discussion, input from others, before reinstating it of course.  Chzz  ► 

The supposed "New York Times" ref appears to be an online reader's comment. As for being "well-referenced," when an inflammatory quotation like this is reported without contemporaneous evidence, but with multiple inconsistent dates and locations attached, that's not exactly a signal of reliable reporting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bloch/Umansky book published by NYU Press confirms the quote on page 246. This book is a fine source to use for a BLP; the only source needed for including the quote. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's silly. If it were the only report, perhaps. But the existence of multiple, contradictory reports undermines the reliability of the entire set. There's a notorious fake Lincoln quote that was often cited in "reliable" sources, including many books, until Ronald Reagan used it in a speech, leading to such widespread public debunking that it's now only rarely trotted out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nathan Moore (English musician)

Nathan Moore (English musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could a couple of editors please review the content at Nathan Moore (English musician)? An editor, possibly the subject, is blanking two sentences regarding a former long term same-sex relationship as well as a soliciting charge. Each statement consists of a single reliably sourced sentence (including BBC News). I pointed the editor to both the article talk page and this noticeboard, however they have chosen to blank the information again without discussion. If it is indeed the BLP subject editing, I can understand why they may not want the information in the article - however I think allowing individuals to blank sourced content that do not like, or perhaps regret, is a slippery slope. It may be best to evaluate the two items being blanked individually; first there is the arrest and fine, which is really a misdemeanor blip in the life of an individual, and secondly there is a long term relationship. Given that it does not appear to be a case of WP:UNDUE, is reliably sourced, and the relationship lasted for over a decade, should it be removed as well? Jezebel'sPonyo 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your on the right track about the minor allegation and the misdemeanor - in the BBC article they call the man his partner - is it notable.....he is married to a woman in 2003 and has a child now - if we remove the minor legal infraction do we need to report/is it notable or personal intrusion that he h previously had a partner that was a man? Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Moore shouldn't be editing his own article. The relationship with the man is as notable as anything else about his personal life and should remain. I agree with the "slippery slope" point. I'm getting very tired of article subjects telling Misplaced Pages what can and can't be in their biographies. Unfortunately, at least in the last endless discussion about Jay Brannan, I believe I was in a minority. But I haven't changed my views on the issue. If it's sufficiently relevant and reliably sourced, it should stay in.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The material should be removed. Aside from the fact that it is gossip and no one should care about this, I find the whole idea of devoting a section to "personal life" as somehow warped. It also looks like it's quite possible that the BBC entertainment piece may be about a crime he didn't commit, another good reason to remove it. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed... once the BBC story is gone, that leaves us with The Sun and some site of unknown provenance that currently doesn't load for me. Not that we should encourage or tolerate people trying to dictate what should be in the articles about them, but the relevance of all this to his notability appears to be about nil. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the relationship after Bbb23 replaced it. That relationship is not notable, or part of his notability. Insisting on reporting it seems closer to personal intrusion that reporting notable details. It does get annoying sometimes dealing with subjects but their concerns and feelings of privacy invasion are considerations imo that a responsible project is able to consider. Moving forward I won't remove it again but if it is considered worthy of inclusion the gaylife cite is dead and I couldn't find it anywhere so I wouldn't replace that and the Sun is unworthy of inclusion so I would only replace the BBC citation.Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to go against consensus here, but relationship information is included in just about every BLP article I've ever looked at that can support it with sources. A relationship is like family - it doesn't have to be related to the person's notability. And we include far more transient relationships than a long-term relationship like this one. Frankly, at the risk of repeating myself, I don't get it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A relationship, what is notable about it? Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

First, notability isn't the touchstone for content. Second, I thought I explained that it's essentially background information about the person. If relationships aren't relevant, then we should remove all of them, including spouses, partners, etc. Come on, since when do we not report on relationships of the subject, generally in the Early life section (original family) and the Personal life section (spouses and other relationships). Why are we reporting on Moore's marriage to a woman but not on his long-term relationship with a man? So far, he's been married for a shorter time than he was in the relationship with the guy. It makes zero sense. We're just doing it because he doesn't want people to know he was in the relationship. We're not removing it because it isn't relevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23 you seem to be pushing that you want to include it because the subject doesn't want it included. His personal notability doesn't seem such to require a lot of trivia background details of his relationships. Imyop it just seems to be trivia and personal intrusive for no added value. Marriage and children is clearly noteworthy. Are you suggesting that it is with a man that it is notable? Although jonny is married to a woman now and has a young child with his wife, he used to be in a relationship with a man. Off2riorob (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I am pushing not to remove it because the subject doesn't want it included. That's a key difference. Relationships are relationships, whether they are marriages, partnerships, or others that aren't "legal" relationships. I don't see why marriages are any more noteworthy than other relationships. Many marriages don't last, whereas other relationships do. Surely, that matters more than a license conferred by the state. Nor am I saying that the relationship with the man is what makes it "notable". Rather, I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's with a man or a woman, it's the relationship that is relevant. What you seem to be advocating is that the marriage with the woman is more "notable" than the relationship with the man. That can't be right. What if he divorces his wife and goes into another relationship with a man? What if he comes out as gay and wants us to remove the marriage with the wife from the article? Sigh. What if someone in their personal life used to be a Nazi and then later became a humanitarian. Would we report only on the humanitarian? By not reporting on the relationship with the man, we are taking a point of view, which we shouldn't do, even if it's one advocated by the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Bbb23 here. Known and sourced relationships are noted in other biography articles. In this case, clearly the information is sourced so it should be kept. AFAIK, there is no policy or grounds for removal in this case. So to be clear, for the editors who want the information removed, what exactly are the reasons for removal? If we are removing it because some day the BBC article may no longer be online or we are sympathizing with Moore- those are not grounds for removal. Moreover, notability of the information isn't at issue here. This is a biographical article; therefore, relationship information is relevant.  snaphat ► 15:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't add all personal details about people, especially when they are of minimal note - its a valueless factoid - in the eighties Jonny had a relationship with a man. And? What happened? Why did they split up? What type of "relationship" was it? Some long term relationships are notable and become well known and are clearly worthy of mentioning, this one from details provided so far,imo is not...unless it is because it was with a man that it is notable. - Marriage is always worthy of note as I have seen, relationships as I have seen are not.Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, I am confused here. The Sun story says that Moore's Partner said: "Nathan has been in a gay relationship for 13 years.". The Wiki article says that he is married with a child. I thought the relationship with the PR guy was current. Someone explain what is going on here?  snaphat ► 16:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought he is currently married to a woman with whom he has a child. The Sun article is dated from 2004 - personally I rejected the Sun as a decent citation for such content in a BLP.- what the Sun calls a "gay relationship" the BBC refers to as the man being the subjects "partner." Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Geir Lippestad - Anders Breveik's lawyer

Geir Lippestad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This seems like an obvious WP:BLP1E to me. Breveik's lawyer is not all of a sudden independently notable. Thoughts.Griswaldo (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That was my first thought when I saw that article early today. However, I looked at the Google News timeline and saw many references to him in 2001-2003, 2008-2009, and now in 2011 and figured I'd let this one pass. However, I just looked at the timeline again. He's not a BLP1E due to the prior mentions but I don't see any detailed coverage of the subject that would allow him to pass WP:N. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

All part of the frenzy around Breveik - seems harmless enough and cited - I think its less disruptive to let it ride for a while and see if it develops, if not nominate it when the edit frenzy has died down. Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

He is not BLP1E prima facie, as he is known for being the lawyer of the perp in the Murder of Benjamin Hermansen before the Norway massacre, so BLP1E doesn't apply at all, period. Notability itself is more iffy to establish, however, I am inclined to notable because he is a figure in two notable events with wide media mention (at least in Norway) and we shouldn't bias notability to notability in English speaking countries. If an AfD happens I predict a snowstorm :) --Cerejota (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done the {{notable}} and WP:PROD hatting, both of which the article's creator immediately removed. I'm still mulling over if I'll do an AFD and its wording. Cerejota noted, it'll be a snowstorm. :) All of the language versions of the Misplaced Pages article are new (created on or after 23 July 2011) with none of them indicating notability. I've been watching no:Geir Lippestad on the assumption the Norwegian editors would be most able to locate a source. For example, he is reported as being a "politician" on the English WP but so far there's no mention that he's ever held office meaning a better description in English may be "politically active."

I agree that his connection to two notable events is a factor plus the Breveik incident has triggered some direct coverage that may well satisfy notability. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

He is basically a celebrity lawyer in Norway. If thats notable or not what we are discussing, but if American celebrity lawyers known only for one case, such as Jose Baez (lawyer) are held to be notable, a Norwegian celebrity lawyer known for two cases then meets the threshold. Perhaps the difference is that Norway tends to have a different celebrity culture that is more respectful than the US's and this creates a lack of RS, but as I mentioned systemic bias is not a reason to deny notability. Again, I am inclined to notability been sustained for a separate article, but the sources *on* the guy are few so I am not clear what the BLP/BIO issues here are.--Cerejota (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Matt Ward (Game Designer)

Matt Ward (game designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Matt Ward is the target of frequent trolling and vandalism; the article itself is a product of trolling. Any libelous edits removed are replaced within a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvirn91 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page and left a warning notice for the unregistered editor responsible for the latest contentious edits to the page. Given that the repeated addition of (very) weakly sourced negative material goes back as far as May this year at the least, I'm also going to ask at WP:RFPP for the page to be temporarily protected from being edited by unregistered users. (Note that, if granted, this will also prevent Wyvirn91 from editing the page until your account is at least four days old and has at least ten edits).

Since none of the persons adding the disputed content created a Misplaced Pages account, the history of the article will tell you the IP addresses used to make the changes and the exact times of the changes - see Help:Page history for more details. However, please be aware that Misplaced Pages has a strict no legal threats policy on Misplaced Pages itself, and therefore any suggestion, implication or discussion of legal action regarding Misplaced Pages or other contributors, is likely to lead to being blocked from editing until the threats are withdrawn or the legal action resolved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Tim Cope - Australian adventurer

An untrue and potentially libellous piece of information is included in Tim Cope's biography. This should be removed as soon as possible. The information states that Tim lives in Australia with his companion tigens and that they are expecting their first child Tim's dog is called Tigon, he was given to Tim in Mongolia by nomad friends. Tim considers Tigon to be the real star of the film 'On the trail of Ghengis Khan'. Tim is not expecting a child. Tigon the dog is reported by Tim to have fathered a number of pups across the steppes.

I've removed what I presume to be the problematic sentence from the lead of the article, and left a note for the editor that added it. In general, where information clearly violates Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy, you can edit the page directly yourself to remove it, with an edit summary explaining why. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter Brookes

Hi - the article on Peter Brookes lists two dates of birth - 1943 in the main article and 1953 below the picture. I am pretty sure the former is the correct date of birth: http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/artists/peterbrookes/biography

How does one change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.221.3.17 (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed in this edit. – ukexpat (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bryanboy

Bryanboy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some speculation from bloggers about unsavory associations, with nothing to indicate that he is himself involved in any wrongdoing, keeps popping up in the article (most recently here). Typically added by User:Engleham. There's also some info on the talk page. More eyes on the page could be useful. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph is nothing more than an allegation of guilt by association and I have removed it from the article and from the talk page per WP:BLP. – ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Good edit Ukexpat! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ephren Taylor

I recommend that the autobiographical entry by/of Ephren Taylor be removed from Misplaced Pages. Large swaths are self-referential, not supported by third-party validation, and, in light of journalistic and legal inquiries regarding his self-promotion and the disgruntled investors who believe he mislead them, this article appears to misuse the exposure of Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollie23 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wade Sanders - 2

Wade Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An attempt is being made to make the article mainly about the subjects arrest and conviction based on the level of content and citations . I believe this is a pretty extreme example of WP:WEIGHT. ZHurlihee (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Syed Zakir Hussain Shah

• Syed Zakir Hussain Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP is in a very poor state. Most of the unverifiable stuff seems to be positive, admittedly - but, still; it's a mass of info with no footnotes. Help!  Chzz  ►  00:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The solution is to use the referneces at the bottom of the article to provide inline cites for what is referencable, and to remove anything that isn't. You can also fix the language to remove peacock terms and stuff like that. --Jayron32 00:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert Spencer (author)

There has been a contentious debate and some edit warring over mention of mention of Anders Behring Breivik in the article about Robert Spencer. At first, a separate section devoted to the Norway attacks was started. Then it was removed altogether and then restored, several times over. Now it has been moved to a "controversies" section which lists several controversial events involving Spencer.

Detractors claim that inclusion of the fact that Breivik quoted Spencer over 60 times in his manifesto amounts to Guilt by Association in violation of WP:BLP. Proponents for inclusion have variously argued that it should be included to demonstrate Spencer's negative influence, to simply reporting the fact alone doesn't constitute Guilt by Association.

It would be nice to see more input and consensus built on this matter. I assume that similar issues have also occurred with regard to Pamela Geller and Breivik's own article.01:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiljan (talk • contribs)

As per references cited under Breivik (3) above, the influence of the internet vehicles of Spencer, Geller, Fjordman and other "counterjihadis" has been commented on in various reports published in reliable sources. There's also a fair amount of direct references to the aims, aspirations and interactions of members of the movement (eg explicit reasons for mutual antagonism over the EDL "anti-semitism" dispute) on the websites and blogs.

Breivik's "2083 - A European Declaration of Independence" calling for a crusade against Islam in Europe is a copy and paste of hundreds of pages taken from right-wing/counterjihadi bloggers and websites, in particular Fjordman's posts at Gates of Vienna (Fjordman) in which he references Jihad Watch (Spencer), The Brussels Journal, FrontPage Magazine, Chronicles, Little Green Footballs, Atlas Shrugs and others.

Frank Patalong in Spiegel Online describes this as an extremely well networked, rapidly growing far-right "scene" that aims to establish a respectable presence as an "anti-Jihad" counterbalance. While they certainly disclaim responsibility for his actions it's hard to see how the influence of their views on Breivik's, noted by observers including Patalong, Shane, Gaarder and Hyllund Eriksen and acknowledged by Breivik himself, can be disregarded when they relate to an action carried out on the basis of those views.

The alternative "dissociative" hypothesis (the claim that mention represents "guilt by association") surely needs to be substantiated too, in a way that explains convincingly why Breivik's views should be assumed not to have been influenced by his immersion in this subculture. Opbeith (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that reports from reliable sources should be included, and also some of Spencer's responses. At the same time, there has been a considerable problem on Spencer's page with supporters inserting "responses" by him to each and every point of criticism. I agree that we'll have to see how this plays out, but I am comfortable with the current, limited wording. Jemiljan (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bit sparse but sometimes you have to go with what's reasonably feasible. At least the desperate efforts being made to stop any connection being made between Spencer's views and Breivik aren't as determined as those aimed at letting Fjordman off the hook, even to the extent of deleting the Fjordman article. Opbeith (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is discussed above in the "Anders Behring Breivik (3)" section. – Quadell 18:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Marina Poplavskaya

Not a violation, just a request from the subject of the article (

I'm not sure either, but I did talk to her on User talk:Margopera about her Facebook concerns. She thought the creator of the article might have also created this Facebook page and considers it identity-theft. I explained that Facebook creates these "community pages" automatically from WP biographies, and unfortunately Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it. I must say that these Facebook pages are rather problematic in the case of BLPs despite their somewhat lame small-print disclaimer: "Community Pages are not affiliated with, or endorsed by, anyone associated with the topic." Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm posting to ANI because of potential legal threat concerns, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Marina_Poplavskaya.  Chzz  ►  15:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Re the photo (File:Marina Poplavskaya06.jpg). It was uploaded by someone who has provided a lot of very high quality images at Commons, at least two of which have been Featured Pictures and it's not at all unflattering, in my view. I wonder if the main objection is that it also appears on the pseudo-Facebook page? Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We could ask her...we could also ask the uploader (via German[REDACTED] where he seems to be based) about the circumstances the photo was taken, but would it be wise to bring the two together, if there are indeed legal implications? Aegoceras (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The image looks like it was taken at one of those organized autograph sessions. I've been to them at the Royal Opera House and there was no prohibition on cameras or taking pictures. It's possible that at Salzburg it was "forbidden" (I don't know), but probably not against the law. Anyhow, no I don't think it would be a good idea to bring them together while there are legal threats being bandied about. Voceditenore (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I had similar thoughts re. the legality, or otherwise - but don't think we can, or should, discuss it on-wiki; unfortunately, that's why I saw a need to request on ANI.  Chzz  ►  15:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• update - the uploader of the picture turned up on commons and stated the picture was taken in a public place. commons deletion discussion - Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

An excellent place for such a discussion. I would hope that any further legal accusations on en.wiki would see the threatener indef blocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Einstein family

Einstein family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should the living great-grandchildren of a notable person (Albert Einstein) be named in an article about his family? I am talking about the privacy of names section of WP:BLP. How close does a relationship need to be for the person to be named, spouse and children obviously, but grandchildren, great-grandchildren? Quasihuman | Talk 18:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no possible encyclopedic value in such listings. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Orange Mike. No point in adding grandchildren and beyond, unless they have an article in their own right. I see no problem with adding information on how many children and grandchildren the person has. Robert Brockway (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed the names. Quasihuman | Talk 14:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-addition of unreferenced ethnicity claims

The List of Hispanic and Latino Americans has just had several 100 unreferenced names added back. I've already reverted some of it today, can some else take a look at this. John lilburne (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that this issue has already been discussed at BLP/N here , and at AN/I here . The consensus is clear on this matter - lists by ethnicity need to be sourced (indeed lists by anything need to be sourced - I'd have thought that this was blindingly obvious). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Kittner

This article contains blatant fabrications, including 90% of the high school years and also some game scores (e.g. the Illini did not defeat LSU in the Sugar Bowl, much less defeat them 70-3). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.36.78 (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I edited the lead and put a BLP sources tag on it. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Jason E. Frankel

This article reads like a CV or resume. The first source does not mention the subject. The second source is from the subject's staff detail at his place of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshersze (talk • contribs) 20:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I did some clean up and its tagged for Notability and Ref Improve so it should be OK for now. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Zara Phillips

Zara Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As she is not changing her name upon marriage can someone revert this http://en.wikipedia.org/Zara_Tindall and possibly move protect it at least for now given the marriage has just happened so drive by page moves are likely. thanks RafikiSykes (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back to Phillips and requested temporary move protection. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Adam Levine

Adam Levine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article insists on including that Adam Levine is part Jewish, even though it is completely unnecessary. It also falsely cites two sources which have nothing to do with Levine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.205.233 (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again... Yup, it looks like a classic case of ethno-tagging, right down to comments about his maternal grandmother. As for the sources, can you say which ones are problematic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again, fanatical scrubbing of all mention of Jewish ancestry... this was the source:. Fences&Windows 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That citation asserts that the subject fits in the cat - People with three non Jewish grandparents - Off2riorob (talk)

"Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish". Edenc1 • Talk 16:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Levins father was half Jewish one of his four grandparents was a full Jew, the other three were not Jewish at all. The majority are clearly more notable than the minority - or at least deserve a mention. Is it correct to focus on the minority - The subjject himself refused a Bar Mitzvah and self describes as an atheist. This Levin is a quarter Jew, and fits in the cat - People whose genetics are seventy five percent not Jewish - Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And this Levine is in the Category:American people of Jewish descent which is correct, that's what the source says, he is descended from one Jewish ancestor. Is that not sufficient, already? CaptainScreebo 22:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry/descent categories are not mutually exclusive. Stop being so fanatical with the Jew-scrubbing, it's really tiresome. Fences&Windows 01:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Another unintelligible response, this makes no senses F&W. Fanatical, eh? And what does one scrub a Jew with I wonder? CaptainScreebo 11:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• - note - from my talkpage but related to thus discussion.- == Adam Levine ==

Hello Off2riorob,

The reference discussed at WP:BLPN states that his father is Jewish, as well as his grandfather on his mother's side. The implication of stating his father is Jewish is that his paternal grandparents are also Jewish. So that's 50% of his grandparents, plus the 25% that is his maternal grandfather. So, if we are into tracking percentages of Jewish ancestry, that comes to 75% not the 25% you repeatedly stated. I think it is fair to say he's of Jewish ancestry, though clearly, according to the source, not religiously observant. Please also be sensitive about exegesis of Jewish ancestry that calls to mind antebellum Southern categories like quadroon and octaroon. Such analyses make a mockery of my sons, born to a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father (me) who converted to Judaism after their birth. My boys would object to being called "half Jewish". They live in a 99% non-Jewish mileu, but are proud young Jews. It is all complex and very, very sensitive. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not sensitive - you are a convert to Judaism and not ethnically Jewish at all. Your sons sound like religiously practicing ethnic half Jews. As regards Levine, one of his grandparents is Jewish - the Jewish post is calling his father Jewish - but the fact is that one of his parents is not Jewish at all and only one out of four of his grandparents is Jewish - he is more not Jewish than he is Jewish. Off2riorob (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"It is all very complex and very, very sensitive". True enough. But is it sensitive enough to (a) ask the opinion of the subject of the BLP whether he/she wishes to be labelled unambiguously 'Jewish', and (b) establish that this 'sensitive' issue is one that should be used as ammunition in the endless ethnotagging warfare that goes on in Misplaced Pages? Frankly, I suspect that 'sensitivity' is the least of the concerns of several of those involved in this debate. Still, who cares about people, when we can argue about abstractions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You are misreading the source, Off2riorob. The source says that his father is Jewish. Therefore, it is highly likely that his paternal grandparents are both Jewish. His maternal grandfather is Jewish according to the source, therefore it is highly likely that three of his four grandparents are Jewish. How do you reach the conclusion that only one of his grandparents are Jewish and that he is "more not Jewish" than Jewish, in terms of ancestry or ethnicity? Are you assuming that his paternal grandparents are not Jewish? What is the reasonable basis for such an assumption? Cullen Let's discuss it 06:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As for "ethnotagging", Andy, the subject of the BLP openly discusses his Jewish ethnic background in the referenced source. He could have declined to comment if he wished to. You won't find me arguing to categorize him as religiously Jewish, because the source makes it clear he isn't. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"it is highly likely" - the source does not support it. Off2riorob (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. A Jewish media source asks specific questions about his background. He gives polite answers to the questions asked. So this means that he accepts everything the Misplaced Pages ethnotaggers wish to state about him? Yeah, right. And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all? Logic might suggest at least partly (ethnically), but given the fact that the article (before I removed the ethnotagging) went out of its way to point out that his maternal grandmother wasn't Jewish, according to Halachic law, he isn't. I think this is nonsense, but the ethnotaggers tend to argue otherwise - except here they don't. I wonder why? - Actually, I don't. Sadly, Misplaced Pages suffers from a surfeit of POV-pushers and obsessives from all sorts of backgrounds, who will use whatever argument they can to slap a label on someone, regardless of what they argued the last time. If Adam Levine considers himself Jewish, and is proud of the fact, good for him - but that is for him to decide, not the Misplaced Pages Committee for Ethnobureacratic Classification and Stereotyping. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep ethnicity out of it. I think WP:BLPCAT and Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality are pretty clear here. I the ethnicity/religion is ambiguous, keep it out. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

George Soros conspiracy theories

I'd like to ask serious BLP watchers to look at the article George Soros conspiracy theories. I'm considering putting it up for deletion. It's really just a series of "So and so accuses Soros of ..." In one case, when the Prime Minister of Malaysia accused Soros of trying to destroy Malaysia's economy, I'm pretty sure that the material can go into a Misplaced Pages BLP article - and in fact it is included in the main George Soros article. In other cases I don't think the material passes WP:BLP, e.g. Glenn Beck accuses Soros of .... All in all, the article looks to me like a way to get around BLP restrictions, which are watched quite closely in the main George Soros article, since there are a lot of conspiracy nuts that attack Soros without having any basis in facts.

Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup - a mess. And if someone is trying to use it to 'get around BLP restrictions', they are mistaken. WP:BLP applies to edits about living persons anywhere on Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I listed it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/George Soros conspiracy theories Smallbones (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Vic Mignogna

Vic Mignogna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The 'Controversies' section that is continually added only contains biased information about Vic Mignogna, and the content that is written includes defamation.

The source that continues to add it, Weeaboo Stories, is not a reliable source and does not provide true information on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.100.236 (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Article could use a couple of additional watchlisters. You are totally correct - thank you for the report. The content is currently out of the article and I will watch it to stop it being replaced and will request it is protected if there are attempts to replace it. Article could also use a little wikification. Trim and tidy type project. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have also added the article to my watchlist. Sorry for reverting the removal, the text shouldn't be there and it's good if we keep an eye on it. Small hint to the IP, please give an Edit summary, it surely prevents your removal from being reverted.Cst17 (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting the removal. I agree with User:Cst17 - the removal was tagged 'section blanking' and there was no explanation. Denisarona (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Stamatios Krimigis

An IP editor claiming to represent the subject placed a statement of concern in the article itself here. I have moved the statement to the talk page and have notified the IP editor. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs, Anders Behring Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks

In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer in the 2011 Norway attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller and cited her "Atlas Shrugs" blog. The truth of this can be found here: http://www.slate.com/id/2299967/ Ms. Geller responded to media accounts here: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/07/media-assassins.html This fact was removed from this entry because "one nut-caseadmirer has nothing to do with her biography." But the fact that Charles Manson and his murderous followers were motivated by a misinterpretation of a Beatles song is included in the entry for Helter Skelter. In addition, Jody Foster's Misplaced Pages entry notes that John Hinckley, Jr. became obsessed with Foster after repeatedly watching the film Taxi Driver and that Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan to impress her. Is it not equally significant and noteworthy that the man who detonated a bomb in the capital of Norway and killed scores of people specifically cited Ms. Geller's blog in the manifesto that he published to explain his actions?  Mr JM  01:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, because Breivik cites all sorts of people in his rambling and contradictory manifesto. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Andy. Those examples are ones where the two have become linked over time and in a way that is itself notable. Such links are not notable at this time between Breveik and any of the people he quotes.Griswaldo (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

ABB praised Geller in a few lines of his huge manifesto. Reliable sources show this is true. But unlike the Helter Skelter and Jody Foster examples, no reliable sources have shown that this manifesto is significant in understanding Geller. That's why we can't include this in a BLP. – Quadell 16:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agnes Varis

User:Dror64 has made this large, uncited, non-neutral POV change to this article, despite my reversions (1, 2 & 3) and the warnings / responses on their talk page / in my edit summaries. Nikthestoned 15:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is now protected by Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). In my opinion it would have been better to block Dror64 (talk · contribs) since protection has restricted editors from making constructive changes to the article. I've said as much on his talk page . Not much else to see here, it seems. causa sui (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.tedstake.com/2011/08/01/agnes-varis/, the blogger Ted Leonsis claims she was his great aunt and died this weekend. Fences&Windows 01:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I must say the response to Dror64 was pretty appalling - someone in good faith came along to try to document her life after her death this weekend, and he was met by edit warring and the locking of the page so that it appears she is still alive. Wikipedians really are heartless automatons sometimes. Fences&Windows 01:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Tori Black

WP:BLP states that caution should be used publishing information on living persons, such as a birth name. i have included the real name of pornographic actress Tori Black, for the following reasons: 1) Tori BLack has made her real name public in a number of ways, including biographical detail in "reality" segments, a facebook page, and at the AVN; consequently, it makes no sense to argue that publishing is harmful. 2) per WP:BLP, the name is sourced. 3) WP:BLP also states that performers' names may be included 4) the longstanding, informal rule omitting porn performer's names is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.198.182 (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Without confirmation that it is indeed her facebook page (given the amount of impersonations that go on), it is better to err on the side of caution and not include this information. You shouldn't be edit warring over this. It's not a violation of WP:NPOV to enforce WP:V and WP:RS strictly with regards to biographies of living people. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Morbidthoughts above, if there is any doubt whatsoever, err on the side of caution. Please stop edit warring, if another editor agrees with you and makes the case for consensus here, let them readd the information. Dayewalker (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you amplify on your statement that it is "obviously" a violation of NPOV not to include their real names? I'm not sure how that is related to neutrality at all, actually. Is there a pressing encyclopedic need to reveal real names of pornographic actors and actresses? causa sui (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky (businessman)

Reporting repeated reinstatement by user Alex Bakharev of poorly sourced, potentially libelous information. The subject of this BLP, Boris Berezovsky, had two successful libel suits in London over the information, which has been reinstated into the article (diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=prev&oldid=442582893). The material in question contains wrongful accusations of Mr Berezobsky of criminal activities including murder, threats of violence and financing terrorists. This is a serious matter, which should be addressed immediately.--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Freddie Foreman - is it libel to call him a criminal rather than a 'former criminal'?

See . Do we also say 'former murderer' when a murderer has served his time? Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not "convicted" rather than "former". There can't be any argument that he was convicted, even if he has served his time. – ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

1. http://portaltransparencia.gob.mx/pot/remuneracionMensual/consultarPuesto.do?method=showEdit&idPuesto=CFGA001&_idDependencia=6
2. http://www.hacienda.gob.mx/SALAPRENSA/sala_prensa_estenograficas/eca_20110221_conf_pib.pdf

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution