Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Winkelvi (talk | contribs) at 00:26, 13 October 2014 (Reverted good faith edits by Cwobeel (talk): Reverting only because I was about to add my own suggested content for the page for editors to consider. (TW)). 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

Children names in BLPs

Chelsea Clinton

An editor has put a blanket veto on placing the name of Chelsea Clinton's baby in the article, even though the name of the baby is in the title of a Washington Post article and the name has been publicized by the family. The editor is also edit warring over this issue . Is this editor's behavior in line? How hot is the sun? (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute about the inclusion of material regarding the name of the new Chelsea Clinton baby (on on the talk page for Chelsea Clinton). Today many articles from trusted news sources released the baby annoucement, and in fact it was a high trending news item of the day. Various politicians or poltical figures have their childrens names (and in many cases date of birth) in their Misplaced Pages articles from cited sources. I understand in the situation of certain celebrity children, privacy is an issue, however this was publically announced by the family and can be cited. This baby is notable for reasons beyond being born, including the lineage of a political family. Information about the child is being removed from this article by Winkelvi and the user has removed other political childrens names, with what appears to be a misinterpretation of BLPNAME. Can we please make a decision on how the BLPNAME policy effects this article? Thank you. Jooojay (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, this baby isn't "notable for reasons beyond being born" - she isn't notable (in the sense that Misplaced Pages uses the term) at all. Notability isn't inherited. And as for this being 'a high trending news item of the day', firstly this encyclopaedia is an international project, and I very much doubt that it is 'high trending' everywhere, and secondly this is not a newspaper, and we are under no obligation to slavishly copy the ephemeral concerns of the media. If the child's name needs mentioning at all, it needs to be justified on proper encyclopaedic grounds, rather than because the local media have run out of more interesting topics on a dull news day. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Andy is right. The child is not notable in its own right. It's not like a child in a royal family, with a position in the line of descent. The child's name would add nothing to the article. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and does not have fill column inches with trash every day. HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me see any convincing reason not to name a child within an article—notable or not—when reliably sourced. Winkelvi has indeed oversimplified (and likely misinterpreted) policy- omission is NOT a requirement simply because a person isn't notable. Giving nameless children is vague, ambiguous, and unhelpful to readers. It also certainly is NOT PRIVATE when publicly announced by the child's family AND many reliable secondary sources. Inclusion is valid as long as it is reliably sourced, simple as that. Jooojay and Tvoz are absolutely correct that it is valid to include. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 a child's name is trash news? That is offensive on many levels. Jooojay (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll ignore that silliness. Being sourced is a necessary but never sufficient reason to include something in Misplaced Pages. The default position in Misplaced Pages is obviously to exclude children's names. See most other biographical articles for evidence. This child would need some special notability to be named here. This child has no notability. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say exclusion is "default"- there's a fuckload of articles which include names of all one's children, age and notability not withstanding. Charolette (or any other celebrity children) not having independent notability is not at all a convincing reason to leave out names. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, fuckload. I see the level of conversation we're working with now. HiLo48 (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME gives us guidance here. The relevant part seems to be: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." So, convince that including the kid's name "is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". She had a baby. That can be news. What she called it makes no difference to my understanding of that fact. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The name of the granddaughter of Bill & Hillary Clinton certainly belongs in Chelsea Clinton's BLP. IAR and all that. This is as close to American Royalty as we can get. I see zippy harm to the baby or the Clintons by including this name which is sourced in every major RS newspaper on the planet. This is taking BLP policy to an absurd level. ABSURD!Two kinds of pork_Bacon 08:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Snort! Chuckle....royalty? Blah...who gives a crap what Princess Chelsea named it. But....the way the name was publically stated and the fact that the name can be reliably sourced means there is no policy that prohibits mentioning the child's name here.--MONGO 09:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a notable baby, but having a baby is a significant event in this notable person's bio. Relaying her name isn't vital, but you'd have a slightly more complete understanding of Chelsea if you knew what she chose. No harm done, like when associating someone's name in Google results with their notorious murderer uncle (or aunt). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:16, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Publically released in a statement from the family? Carried in reliable news sources? There is absolutely nothing in policy or guidelines that bars us from including it. Whether we want to or not is another matter, but I can see no harm in one mention of the name in connection with the birth. We have stacks of articles (including BLPs) where an infobox lists all the children, whether they are notable or not. I see nothing here that makes the inclusion of the name a problem. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Marc Mevinzky is also not notable, and the article doesn't mention him doing anything independent of "the couple". If this sort of thing is harmful, we should help him, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Will you folk please have a think about why you're thinking this way? What earthy difference does the kid's name make to you? And to our readers? It's trivia. It's effectively voyeurism. Chelsea is of no real importance herself. Her kid even less so. The kid's name? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

But her gluten-free wedding cake, that's important. And her "more sophisticated look" from Donatella Versace. #5 Girl in a 2002 Tatler magazine list? Damn important, whatever it means. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:49, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Poor Chels and Mezza. The name is obviously irrelevant. The child deserves her own article! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"It's effectively voyeurism"? No, having one mention of the name is nothing like voyeurism, effectively or ineffectively. - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Then answer the question. What earthy difference does the kid's name make to you? Or any of our readers? HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not our call whatsoever. We pass that kind of question off to WP:RS. If they, for whatever reasons they deem applicable, widely report the name, then the name crosses all sorts of threshholds for inclusion. (Unless some intentional suppression has been requested by the family or courts or government, as per WP:BLPNAME.) Whether their reasons were "effectively voyeurism" or something else is completely irrelevant to us, and as such, you are not making an argument for exclusion. Choor monster (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, this tabloid-ish nonsense is infesting Bill Clinton's article as well. IMO WP:BLPNAME is enough of a rationale to leave a baby's name out of infoboxes and such for the time being. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comments +policy: The child is not notable by Misplaced Pages standards; notability is not established by one event. In this case, the "one event" is the child being born. Including the child's name does not help the reader better understand the article subject. The child's name in an encyclopedia article is tabloid trivia worthy of People Magazine, it's not encyclopedic content.

• Guidelines found in WP:BLPNAME are clear on this: "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event...When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value."

• WP:LOWPROFILE applies: "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event."

• WP:BLP1E applies as well: "Misplaced Pages is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Misplaced Pages article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."

I have seen this argument discussed many times over the last couple of years I've been here. Each time it comes down to what I posted above with the conclusion being: the names and all identifying information of non-notable minor children are to be left out of Misplaced Pages articles. In the case of Chelsea Clinton's baby, saying the birth occurred and in the month/year it occurred is sufficient. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever said notability came from a singular event or whether a separate article is automatically warranted. Names are NOT TRIVIAL, and I'm sure anybody would be highly offended to hear that said about their child, and would highly disagree about it being "tabloidish" or "tabloid trivia" or "not encyclopedic". It is NOT indiscriminate, and when prominent political figures like the Clintons become grandparents, society views that as a pretty big deal, regardless of whether or not the grandchild becomes independently notable. There's nothing unencyclopedic with including an important part of a person's life. There is no hard-and-fast rule prohibiting inclusion. If a reader comes across text saying "_____ has a child", he or she will likely ask "what is the child's name?", and it would help readers to simply give answers when and where they want them. Being "non-notable"/"low-profile" isn't by itself a convincing reason to leave out names. If Chelsea on the other hand specifically mentioned she did not want her child's name known/revealed, that would be a different story. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS wrote: "I'm sure anybody would be highly offended to hear that said about their child". I'm sure the Clintons couldn't care less about what Misplaced Pages editors are saying about them in a Misplaced Pages talk page or noticeboard. No feelings of the article subject and associated relatives will be hurt during the course of this discussion. Such emotional commentary is neither germane to the conversation nor is it helpful. You further state, "Being "non-notable"/"low-profile" isn't by itself a convincing reason to leave out names". Policy disagrees with your personal, emotional opinion. You're free to take this up with Misplaced Pages policy-makers, I suppose, but in the meantime, the policy is what it is. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No no- policy doesn't explicitly state it absolutely should/shouldn't be left out simply due to lack of notability. Also, I was saying Chelsea would highly disagree that info on her daughter is "trivial", especially seeing to it that she publicly gave it out. Calling Charlotte's identity "tabloidish" would likely offend the family. As long as the information is reliably sourced it IS VALID to include. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/c, responding to Winkelvi above, agreeing strongly with SNUGGUMS) You have badly misunderstood all the policy that you have been quoting. WP:BLP1E and WP:LOWPROFILE, for example, are about whether someone should have a separate standalone article or be part of some larger article. The standards for simply appearing in an article are much much lower than having a standalone article. And they say nothing against including the name. In fact, the policy you quote explicitly recommends that such a low-profile name be an explicitly named redirect to the more general article. This is what is done, for example, with Obama's children, who have done nothing notable. (Although the instant they do something as minor as Chelsea or the Bush twins have done, or even HRC's mother, they will doubtless become so.) Contrast this with potentially being fourth in line to the English throne: that in itself counts as so notable that one doesn't even need a name, let alone a birth, to have a standalone article. Here, no one is suggesting a standalone article, so quoting reasons why we can't have one is simply wasting everyone's time.

As for WP:BLPNAME, I cannot see how anyone can read it as applying to this situation. The purpose is to protect privacy, which simply does not exist in this situation. As for newborns, names, genders, and dates are certainly considered routine information, told to everyone. As for "reader's complete understanding", well yes, the name is necessary: forcing our readers to click on the NYT link (and apparently we can't reference the WashPost article because the title has the name?) or Google for that one last bit of information is ludicrous. At worst, consensus must be achieved, and misapplying policy isn't contributing to consensus. Choor monster (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, I haven't badly misunderstood policy on this. In response to your comment, "As for newborns, names, genders, and dates are certainly considered routine information, told to everyone." Not in an encyclopedia. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding policy, you have opted for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Not very encouraging. Yes, I typically find children's names of people with in encyclopedia articles, both WP and in-print. Choor monster (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is rather silly not to include this reliable information in the Chelsea Clinton biography (perhaps someone else's biography, it would be different but this is not someone else's biography). Sure, we do not have to, but per policy, we apply common sense to such things, and a widely publicized child name is just a standard part of reasonably complete biography for a mother. There is certainly no privacy concern, so all of those objections are without foundation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Are we really having a discussion about this? Most bios include names of the person's children, and I don't see why this would be any different. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• I would support inclusion. This isn't "trash news" as others have claimed. The birth announcement was covered widely here in America. While I understand the privacy concern, we shouldn't substitute our judgment for that of the child's own parents. Calidum 17:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not the child's parents whose privacy we are concerned about. The name belongs to the kid, not the parents, and it hasn't given permission. It may grow up not wanting to be routinely and automatically connected with its philandering grandfather. It IS trash news. It's trivia. Chelsea herself isn't really independently important. The kid is definitely not. It may grow up NOT wanting to known as Bill Clinton's grand kid. We must leave it with that choice. And Cwobeel, you need to provide evidence that "Most (Misplaced Pages) bios include names of the person's children". I also say again, what the media says doesn't change our policies, which clearly discourage naming the child, no matter how incapable some here are at reading WP:BLPNAME. And to those saying it's well sourced, that is never enough. HiLo48 (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The notability of Baby Clinton is not being discussed. What Baby Clinton might want or not want regarding its grandparents is outside our control or concern: the attachment is there and will always be made. Media does not make our policy, for sure, but our policy relies on the media. In particular, the choices that the media make are given great weight. The name is not trash news. That is a rather rude, obnoxious and insulting statement for anyone to make regarding something that most of the media have apparently decided is of interest to their readers. And I'd say you've blatantly misread WP:BLPNAME. It asserts the name should be clearly left out in certain narrowly defined circumstances, and leaves it to editorial discretion in other cases. This is not one of those narrowly defined circumstances, ergo, you cannot raise an objection based on WP:BLPNAME. Choor monster (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I can, and have. You cannot dismiss it that easily. HiLo48 (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You've missed my point. Charlotte's parents are the ones who get to make the call on her privacy concerns. Not us. I'd also suggest you step away from this discussion if you really feel Chelsea isn't notable enough and if you continue to insist the name is trash. Of course, you also wanted ISIS' beheading videos on Misplaced Pages, so I'm not sure anyone should listen to what you have to say. Calidum 18:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a stupid and pathetic debating strategy. Please stay on topic. HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree: Calidum, stick to the topic.

Meanwhile, you have not actually raised on objection based on WP:BLPNAME. You have taken some words from it, and thrown them up in the air, claiming they apply here. They do not.

To be precise. The first paragraph of the policy addresses people known for one event. Baby Clinton is not known for any events, although some people are saying she is notable for "being born", which is ridiculous. (Unlike Louise Brown, whose only claim to notability was being born.) The baby is known and newsworthy today, and will remain known and newsworthy for quite some time, precisely because of Grandfather and Grandmother Clinton. (Just wait for her first play date with Prince George.) And that will never be something she can erase, so all your talk about WP ought to take some moral high ground and respectfully back off makes absolutely no sense. Like you said, please stay on topic, OK?

As for the second paragraph of WP:BLPNAME, the "presumption in favor of privacy" is null and void here. So long as we have WP:RS identifying the names for us, it's explicitly no longer a WP:BLPNAME leave-it-out concern, but a consensus-based editorial issue here, as the paragraph explains. Choor monster (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• The names of notable people's children regularly appear in the articles of those notable people. This in now way violates BLP1E, NOTINHERITED, or any other BLP policy, as those policies refer to whether or not an actual ARTICLE on the child should exist. If THAT were the debate, I would NOT support including an article on Chelsea Clinton's child. But it's not. So, I support including the name. LHM 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability is not a criteria for inclusion of content in a Misplaced Pages article. Notability is the criteria for a subject or topic to have a Misplaced Pages article. Is a baby and its name significant to an article on Chelsea Clinton or to any mother /father/parent. Apparently so since its included in most WP BLPs where that information is available. Is the baby and its name included in multiple mainstream sources. Yes, and further attests to the perceived significance of this content. We should not confuse notability with significance.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC))

Editors here keep saying things like "...its included in most WP BLPs where that information is available". I have asked several times, and will ask again. Prove it. Too much of this discussion is of the form "I declare this, so it's true". HiLo48 (talk)

You can't seriously be arguing that the names of children of BLP aren't included in the articles of the BLP, can you? This is a serious case of WP:IDHT. Here's one on Jeb Bush, for example. There are literally thousands of others. 18:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to prove it. Jeb Bush isn't "most". And put-downs like "You can't seriously be arguing..." never help. Of course I'm serious. Let's keep some quality in this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have unclosed this discussion: it was not signed, no outcome was provided (whose stick? which stick?), and there is certainly no consensus on anything. I see at least three editors who are providing arguments for not including the material, and plenty of editors on the other side. This is not ready for closure. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• In this case the name should be included in Chelsea's article. It is true that we often elect to omit the names of non-notable minor children from bio articles. However, the reasons for doing so are obviated when the family itself releases the name, and it is the subject of extensive coverage in major media. The denigration of the coverage here as "tabloid" is inappropriate given that the sources include all the major American newspapers. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, of course that name is in the media (tabloid and otherwise); mom is famous, and of course the family released it. But the way I read the policy, we should leave the names of clearly non-notable people out of these articles. They are included in such articles all over the place, but by the same token they are also frequently removed from such articles, and with better grounds. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's tabloid. Even the major newspapers have lowered their standards in recent times to retain/attract audience in a dwindling market. It's the child's privacy that matters here. We have policies. We don't have to lower them just because others lower theirs. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Tabloid!? HiLo, you know as well as everyone else that major newspapers are quite different from tabloid journalism AND have much higher integrity. The idea of privacy is entirely moot when the family publicly announced it, so that argument is pretty much nullified. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the Clintons happen to be a particularly publicity seeking family? They seek all the publicity they can get, for obvious political reasons. We don't have to play that game. Our policies say we should give the kid privacy. I have made my point about newspapers. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, the ONLY reason I know that Chelsea even had a kid is because of Misplaced Pages. It isn't news outside the USA. (Well, not in the outlets I see regularly.) The kid's privacy is safe there. Well, it was,, until some excited Wikipedians chose a global encyclopaedia to announce the kid's birth AND name. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Policies do not explicitly say it is a requirement per se to "give the kid privacy". In short, such information is NOT private at all when widely known to the public. If it was private, then society likely wouldn't have even known about her existence. As long as the information is reliably sourced, inclusion IS valid. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line: if the child/grandchild is non-notable and a minor, WP:BLPNAME is clear: naming them doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject, we aren't writing a tabloid or newspaper/magazine article, therefore, privacy for minor children is preferred for encyclopedic content. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not an absolute requirement, though. In fact, given how one's child(ren) make up an important part of his/her life, leaving it out wouldn't really help viewers. If a viewer reads "_____ has a child", he or she will likely seek to know the child's name. For the reader's convenience, it is much simpler for them to provide the answer right then and there. No, policies DO NOT EXPLICITLY give a preference. And it is NOT PRIVATE AT ALL when known to the public AND publicly announced by family AND is reported in reliable sources. Adding such detail doesn't by itself constitute a tabloid, magazine, or newspaper. It IS encyclopedic to include as long as it is reliably sourced. The idea of privacy is oxymoronic when the public already knows about such detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You really don't need to shout. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• non notable minor, no value to article or reader. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, it IS of value. Stating someone has a child and not giving any further detail is unhelpful and vague to readers. One's children are quite important to a person's life, unless said person simply doesn't care about his/her children. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

that some people dont feel satisfied until they have all the personal details about everything is why tabloids exist. As an encyclopedia, we serve a different function.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS wrote: "One's children are quite important to a person's life," Oh my gawd. How many times do you have to be reminded that this is an encyclopedia and touch-feely thoughts of "I may hurt someone's feelings by leaving their child's name out of an article" don't apply here? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't so much a "hurt someone's feelings" as it is A: children are a major detail about the person, especially when aiming for a comprehensive article (with Misplaced Pages's definition of "comprehensive" meaning "it neglects no major facts or details") B: said person would disagree that it is "trivial" or "not important". There's absolutely nothing un-encyclopedic about including a major aspect unless it is unsourced/poorly sourced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good grief. This entire thread is basically one small group of editors applying a draconian (and wrong) view of WP:BLPNAME in an attempt to (for whatever reason) keep the names of a BLP's children out of an article, when the BLP herself has released the name of the child. I could list hundreds of BLPs where names of non-notable children are included in the BLP's article. And if you look at the talkpage, the ENTIRE argument from BLPNAME has just been completely blown out of the water. There's no reason not to include the well-sourced name of Chelsea Clinton's child--or Jenna Bush's, for that matter, as one of the editors above is trying to make some kind of WP:POINT by going to THAT article and removing her child's name. This really needs to stop. LHM 03:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

To say that there's no reason is insulting to those who have presented some reasons. You may not those reasons are important enough, but they exist. Please think of using manners here. And stop using such shallow argument. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning has been shot all to hell at both the talkpage and here. Completely taken apart as without merit. But you didn't hear that, so you keep accusing others of bad manners and such, in lieu of explaining how including the well-sourced name of Chelsea Clinton's child in her article violates BLPNAME. LHM 03:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, you've been dismissive yourself towards others' rationales on multiple instances here, so there's hypocrisy on your part. Just saying. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I will dismiss particularly foolish and dishonest editing. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I'd much rather deal with someone who swears like a sailor than someone who begins hurling around insults once their arguments are put to bed. LHM 05:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Me too. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Mention by name Quite properly, we have biographical articles about the three grandchildren of Abraham Lincoln, including the boy named after him Abraham Lincoln II who died at age 16. We have a biography of a JFK child who died shortly after birth. None of them accomplished all that much, but are notable as descendents of a great president. We have articles about many parents and grandparents of U.S. presidents. I am not arguing for an article about Charlotte at this time, nor Sasha Obama nor Malia Obama. But refusing to mention these presidential offspring and grandchildren, discussed widely in reliable sources, and mention of which is entirely approved by their parents, is excessively pedantic and unsupported, in my view, by policy. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's just more WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I can't imagine why most of those articles exist. Might look at nominating some for deletion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Given your behavior in this discussion, such a WP:POINTy display from you would not surprise me in the least. (And if you're going to keep citing OTHERSTUFF, you should really read it. It doesn't say what you think it says.) LHM 08:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you get me mind reading lessons too? HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes to the baby's name since the parents of the baby prominently published the name. Not only do we have strong arguments for inclusion of the name, based on very high quality sources, and many positive precedents, but HiLo48 let slip the true nature of the opposition with the offhand comment "Chelsea is of no real importance herself." That shows an ideological opposition rather than a logical one. Binksternet (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? I, for one, have no idea what you're talking about. Care to elaborate? Which ideology? HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The comment "Chelsea is of no real importance herself" shows you shifting into an emotional position, the abandonment of logic for a snide slam against the bio subject. If you really thought Chelsea was not important you would nominate her biography for deletion, which would never fly, and I'm sure you know that. So you've hurt your otherwise logical arguments, saddling them with emotional baggage. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In what way is Chelsea Clinton important? And again, how is my position ideological? HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a better vantage point than I do to judge how your position might be more ideological or emotional than logical. Regarding Chelsea's importance to the world, she is commonly considered future presidential material in the U.S., for instance by these sources: In the interim, she is stepping up to take over the titular leadership of the Clinton Global Initiative so that Bill and Hillary can be freed from the constraints of being so closely associated with that fairly powerful NGO while simultaneously promoting Hillary as a presidential candidate. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So we include the kid's name because its mother might be important one day? No. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And this ideology thing. It's you who said my position was ideological, not me, so it's you who must explain that statement. How is my position ideological? HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• There simply is no basis to keep this information out. As already noted, privacy is no issue where the fact is repeatedly well sourced. Moreover, the argument that it is not encyclopedic has no legs, as that does not accord with the meaning of encyclopedic. As for unnamed "good reason", none has been brought forward -- it is informationally part of her biography (see, eg. ). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Many reasons have been given. You are free to disagree with them. But obviously many disagree with you. That contradicts "There simply is no basis to keep this information out." Privacy IS an issue. Misplaced Pages is long term and global. The current media frenzy in the USA is neither. Nobody has asked the child if it wants its name in a long term, global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, disagreement alone does not form a basis in reason. It is unreasonable say that a newborn should be asked anything. Privacy is not an issue when the matter is already well published. Indeed, I already linked to a long term and globally published biography of Chelsea Clinton that has this well documented fact in it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Care to post that link again please? (There's a lot of crap been posted here, and I missed that.) 22:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is linked in my comment of 12:46 that you responded to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of name, as (i)being extremly well published and as such any privacy concerns are de facto moot (ii)of encyclopedic value, since last time I checked names, just as dates and locations, are encyclopedic information. We don't talk of "that President of the United States", we talk of George Washington or Richard Nixon. Names are the essential identifiers we use to look for something. In some cases we can avoid naming people due to privacy concerns, thus failing our encyclopedic mission in the name of some greater good, perhaps, but in this case -again- those concerns do not exist. Finally, given that BLP concerns are out of the question, then (iii) we do not go around deciding to remove sourced and germane information because "it is trash", since we are not censored.--cyclopia 13:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring all that has been properly said about the privacy concerns.The Washington/Nixon analogy is about as irrelevant as it could possibly be. Nobody is censoring anything. HiLo48 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been "properly said" about actual "privacy concerns." You've just jumped from blue link to blue link, trying to find any rationale you might be able to twist unrecognizable to support your campaign against inclusion of Chelsea Clinton's baby's name. There are no "privacy concerns" in this case, as the parents have made the name widely known, and various reliable sources have published it. LHMask me a question 18:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support including the child's name. This is standard practice where it can be reliably sourced, and done in numerous FAs. Just because the child is not (yet) independently notable, doesn't mean her name is not worth including in her mother's article. What importance is the name? Of what use? How about actually telling people the child's name? There are people who look to Misplaced Pages just for such information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You people all have WAY too much time on your hands. No one in the real world actually gives a rat's behind about "BLP", "NPOV" or any of the other nonsense that's been discussed here. Mention the kid's name or don't. I and 99.99999999999% of people in this world don't care one way or another. I urge you all to do something that is actually productive in this life, like teaching illiterate children to read or keeping elderly people company or any of a hundred things. This "conversation" has long since passed the point of being absolutely absurd. To quote William Shatner "Get a life!" 66.67.32.161 (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Jenna Bush Hager

Jenna Bush Hager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A very similar issue to Chelsea Clinton's baby being deleted from the Chelsea Clinton article, is now happening to the Jenna Bush Hager article with user Winkelvi taking a stand that the discussion here did not reach a consensus or decision noted about the inclusion of baby names. This behavior seems unproductive at this point and he is not seeking community feedback. Jooojay (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, he's now edit-warring on Chelsea Clinton, just saying BLP over and over again. Choor monster (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but such actions are now bordering on WP:POINT. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The only arguments put forward are a blatant misinterpretation of BLPNAME, that has been roundly refuted above, and the sticking of one's fingers in the ears after that argument has been refuted. LHM 21:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I neither know nor care who Jenna Bush Hager is, but I just saw that claim of "roundly refuted above". That is simply wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Jenna Bush is one of the daughters of George W Bush. I assume that the article is being offered for purposes of comparing what our general practice is. I suspect you would be hard pressed to find a recent President whose grandchildren are not named. Jack Carter (politician) names Jimmy Carter's grandchildren. Jason Carter (politician) names the great grandchildren of Jimmy Carter. Michael Reagan names President Reagan's grandchildren. Jeb Bush names grandchildren of George H W Bush. --B (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Very true. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue is in regard to non-notable minor children and grandchildren. Not all children and grandchildren.

Bottom line: if they are non-notable and minors, WP:BLPNAME is clear: naming them doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject, we aren't writing a tabloid or newspaper/magazine article, therefore, privacy for minor children is preferred for encyclopedic content. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line, you are wrong, you don't listen, and this is becoming tendentious, and pointy - Cwobeel (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You're very needlessly rude. In fact, an admin at the 3RR noticeboard has pointed this out. I guess you missed it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it says nothing like that. "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" (none of that stuff is the case here) "... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." You're trying to pretend that only the second part of that sentence is in there without the first part. I'm about as pro-BLP as they come, but not including names of a President's grandchildren is silly. You don't have a more public family (at least in the US) than a President's family. --B (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, B. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(Insert scoffing here) Not including names of a President's grandchildren is silly? What possible value could including the names of someone's grandchildren bring to an encyclopedia article (unless we're talking ancestral line importance)? The answer: No value whatsoever. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

While it might not necessarily belong in the President's own article, it most certainly DOES belong in the article on the President's child. This is what I believe B meant. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless they have done something significant in their own right, I cannot see why a President's child is notable, let along that person's children. Having a famous parent does not make one notable. The fact that it's done in some other articles doesn't convince me I'm wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever said the child was independently notable, only that articles should contain details on their children. It doesn't have to be extensive, but there should at least be something (i.e. name and birthdate). Otherwise, the article is incomplete. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that makes no sense. An article on subject A is incomplete without the name and birthdate of non-subject B? The operative phrase in BLPNAME is "editorial discretion", and really, this is where I, and apparently a whole bunch of others, draw the line. You can't simply dismiss that as "oh those idiots didn't hear that/had their fingers in their ears/justdon'tlikeit" or some other cute bluelinked phrase. What on earth could the birthdate (and name) add for the reader of this or other articles, unless we're just another TMZ? Drmies (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Don't worry- I wasn't being dismissive. What it would add is a significant time and event of the person's life (unless subject does not hold parenthood in high regard). Including it in no way makes Misplaced Pages like TMZ unless it was unsourced/poorly sourced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• User:SNUGGUMS, my children are very important to me. To me. And at some point I aim to be notable (via PROF, hopefully, not via GNG), and at that time you better leave my kids out of it. Those events are of enormous importance to me and, I would assume, to Chelsea Clinton. But that doesn't make them important to the reader, and it doesn't take away from the injunction we have for editorial discretion, including such things as full names and birthdates. That such can be found in other ways by those who care is irrelevant: we have removed, even rev-deleted material on living people that was all over the internet for BLP concerns. Note that (for me) the sourcing, as I said above, is not the problem--rather, my TMZ reference refers to readership and what we want ourselves to be. There are lots of things that are well-referenced that we don't report either; it's a matter of taste (in K-pop, performers have designated colors, and apparently their bloodtypes are important to the fans). You and I (and others) can disagree on what is in "good taste" or not, but you cannot simply say "oh that's your opinion" because that applies to yours as well: there is no iron-clad reason why we should include that information. After all, she's not notable because she had a baby. Hell, my wife had three, all of which mine (she says), and neither that, nor the fact that those events were momentous for us, rise to the level of notability. Also, my babies were better-looking than hers. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Whether such information should be included depends on how much said person wants to reveal. In instances were one intentionally keeps information on family secret from the public, it wouldn't be included. I wasn't saying to have things like bloodtypes in articles, only that including simple detail like who the child is and when he/she was born isn't a harmful idea unless parent specifically objects to society knowing about it. The only ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT is that details need reliable sourcing. Aside from that, there are no hard-and-fast requirements for inclusion of detail. Also, it's not like I would post someone's home address or email or anything. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS wrote: "Nobody ever said the child was independently notable". Which, on its own, is the very crux of this whole matter. If the child is not notable, we have no reason or need to name them. Just because their name appears in reliable sources doesn't give a reason to include them in an encyclopedia article about someone else. Both of these points have been mentioned several times in this noticeboard discussion as well as all the others with the same theme. The child is a minor and non-notable. Their name and other identifying information is not of any import in an encyclopedia article. That's exactly what WP:BLPNAME already tells us. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you believe the purpose of the rule is? The purpose of the rule is to have a respect for privacy - not anything having to do with notability. We don't give family and personal details of marginally notable people out of a respect for their privacy. We don't want someone who doesn't like their local weatherman's forecast to come here and find out where he lives, what his kids' names are, and where they go to school. Privacy is not an issue in this case, though, because the names are widely known and publicized. --B (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

But the kid is still no more than marginally notable, so there is no point including it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a convincing reason to leave such detail out- omission would make the article incomplete. Also, it is not private when publicly known within society. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

B wrote: "The purpose of the rule is to have a respect for privacy - not anything having to do with notability." First of all it's not a "rule", it's policy. In answer to your question, the purpose is not just "privacy" but keeping out non-notable and non-important trivia found in publications with little to no editorial discretion out of an encyclopedia article. It's become clear to me today that (a) people editing Misplaced Pages have no concept that it's supposed to be an encyclopedia they are writing, and (b) there are still a number of people editing who have serious reading comprehension problems when it comes to policy - in part because they don't realize they are editing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper/tabloid/magazine article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, BLPNAME actually does not explicitly say such detail has to be excluded simply due to being a non-notable minor. That's a very dogmatic oversimplification. It IS of import because it is an important part of the parent's life. What it actually says that such detail, if included, must be reliably sourced. It doesn't help readers to just give vague detail. So far, I haven't seen any convincing reason not to include it. Given how Misplaced Pages's best content is to be comprehensive, omission would prevent this from being top-notch as it is a major fact/detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're arguing against something nobody has actually said there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

He is arguing against those of you who are oddly claiming that a widely-known name of a BLP's baby shouldn't be included in that BLP's article, even though that goes against how we do things on BLPs where children's names are widely-known. What hes actually doing is arguing against something you all have been claiming throughout the article: that the article shouldn't disclose the name of a child that has been covered in many major secondary sources. As the specious WP:BLPNAME claims have been completely refuted, the argument against inclusion is left with little more than, "well, I don't think it should be included, and so I'm going to take it out anyway. LHM 04:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The WP:BLPNAME claims have NOT been completely refuted. And unfortunately, you chose to lie about the thread above as part of your evidence. I suggest that you should 1. apologise for your lie, and 2. just keep quiet for now because of the embarrassment you have caused on your side of this debate. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they have. Just because you have your fingers in your ears doesn't mean people haven't torn those claims to shreds. And I have not "lied" at any point--I find it quite hypocritical that someone who was complaining about someone using the term "fuckloads" above is now accusing me of "lying", demanding apologies, and telling me to "just keep quiet." LHM 05:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you lied and are still doing it. Maybe it was unintentional, in which case, one can only wonder why? HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

One can not unintentionally "lie." A "lie" requires knowing X to be false, and still claiming it to be true--an act of will against the truth, once one knows what the truth is. That's why, even as you dig your heals in regardless of the evidence, I don't think you're "lying", as much as you're just being willfully obtuse, which is different. But it's just sort of sad to watch you insist that I am lying, when I've posted swaths of examples showing that what I claim to be true actually is true. LHM 12:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You said, right near the start of this thread, that the argument around BLPNAME "been roundly refuted above". That was a lie. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've seen the argument put forward above, "well the kid isn't notable." Certainly not, and no one's claiming she is. But her existence and her name are notable in relation to her mother's article. And the names of many non-notable people appear in the articles of BLPs. We nearly always list the names of a BLP's non-notable parents, for example. A person doesn't need to be notable in their own right for their name to appear on Misplaced Pages, particularly when they are part of a notable person's immediate family. (Note: I'm not arguing for ARTICLES on those people, just noting that they are nearly always MENTIONED in the articles of the people to whom they are closely related, or to events in which they participated. LHM 04:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A BLP's non-notable parents are never minors. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So? They're not notable, yet their names appear in the articles. "The kid isn't notable" was an argument put forward above. LHM 05:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. You misunderstood my post. The bit about minors was the important bit. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It was? Where is that in policy? At the moment, it appears to be your personal bugaboo. Choor monster (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You are failing to comprehend. There is no point me wasting more time on you. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to be comprehended. You have not made an argument based on policy. You have made an argument based on your personal wishes. If there is some aspect of policy which singles out "minor children" in this situation, while permits "adult parents", you have not identified it, and now you are just running away, unable and unwilling to admit you are the one wasting everyone's time. Choor monster (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made considerable argument based on policy. There is no point me wasting more time on you. HiLo48 (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It would not be a waste of time if you identified the alleged part of policy where "minor children" whose names have been widely publicized by the parents and MSM are singled out for exclusion. Just repeatedly running away is the same as conceding that there is no such policy. Choor monster (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusion of the names of BLP's children in the article of a BLP

Here is a partial list, on just a few of the articles that sprung immediately to mind: Angelina Jolie, Lisa Kudrow, Jeb Bush, Katie Holmes, Barack Obama, Tom Cruise, Michelle Obama, Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, and the list could go on and on. In addition to WP:BLPNAME being utterly shredded as a means for deleting the names of a BLP's children at the talkpage of one of the articles, as well as above, precedent shows that we don't have a problem including such information when it is well-sourced. LHM 05:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Much agreed. The key is reliability of sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Sourcing is never enough. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS negates the first post above. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you read OTHERSTUFF all they way through? It is specifically NOT an argument against using precedent, as you seem to believe. Given how insulting your posts have become above, it may be time for you to step away from the discussion for a bit. LHM 05:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's not even original. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In the future, I'd suggest reading the essays you cite, to at least make sure they support the point you think you're trying to make. OTHERSTUFF actually makes the case that precedent DOES matter, in some cases. LHM 07:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly. For a prime example, see Ted Cruz. The names of his children can not be well-sourced, and thus are properly excluded from the article. LHM 05:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)LHM, I refer you to the following (also only a partial list of more examples of the same): ; .

Your understanding of WP:BLPNAME is incorrect. Moreover, saying that we've done it before isn't a valuable or valid argument. Plenty of people run stop signs everyday, too. That doesn't make it an acceptable or wise practice or erase the "policy" regarding such an act. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep repeating WP:BLPNAME over and over, even though it's been utterly refuted as an argument against inclusion at the talkpage. I mean literally, it's been point-by-point debunked as applying in this case. BLPNAME does not mean what you think it means. LHM 05:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been "refuted". (Hardly the right verb, but if you like it, I'll go along with it.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You must not know what the word "refuted" means, either. The use of BLPNAME to try to remove all names of children from BLP articles HAS been refuted. (Note: I'm not saying the that BLPNAME has been refuted, just that the bastardized way you guys are trying to USE it has.) LHM 07:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• And you want this to be a clear-cut "run the stop sign" type of case, but it's not. Inclusion of the names of a BLP's children is acceptable in some articles, but not in others. It all depends upon the sourcing available. And no matter how many times you repeat it, BLPNAME does NOT refute that. LHM 05:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been refuted. There are a few who (like yourself) have claimed it's been refuted. Saying it's so over and over again doesn't make it true. I keep repeating policy because it is what it is and it is real and right. How anyone can believe policy can be "refuted" is beyond my understanding (unless one's thought process goes into the realm of bad faith, that is). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT what BLPNAME says. You are willfully misinterpreting it. Well-sourced, made public by the parents, cited all over the world, is in no way defamatory and in no way in violation of BLP policies. And to add to LHM's list above - and this could go on for days - of particular relevance to Presidential daughter Chelsea Clinton would be Jenna Bush Hager, Caroline Kennedy, Lynda Bird Johnson Robb, Amy Carter, Susan Ford, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Luci Baines Johnson, Margaret Truman and more - and let's expand that list to the daughter of someone who actually was elected President - Karenna Gore, and what the hell, how about some Presidential sons' BLPs like Jack Carter (oh my, even names his step-children), a Presidential grandson Jason Carter, and some wannabe Presidential children like Tagg Romney and Vanessa Kerry. Shall I go on? This is idiotic, incorrect, and a tendentious waste of our time. It has NOTHING to do with BLPNAME. Stop this disruption. Tvoz/talk 06:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to call this "idiotic", Tvoz, but yes policies don't explicitly prohibit including such detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• More precedents: Denzel Washington, Tom Hanks, David Letterman, Craig Ferguson, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and the list could go on and on and on... Precedent should never be simply ignored like a few editors above are recommending. LHM 07:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages could finally decide to follow policy, and not write so much about non-notable people, rather then be swayed by the whims of excitable and excited editors. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, you could realize perhaps you don't understand policy in this matter, and that it could possibly be that a decade plus of WP practice is right and you are wrong. LHM 08:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Policy does not forbid or even discourage writing about non-notable people. It forbids having articles about them. Anyone mentioning a need for "notability" here as grounds for exclusion of the name does not have a clue about policy. Choor monster (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Our fundamental goal here is to create a quality encyclopaedia. Personal details of non-notable people, like me, and you, and this baby, aren't part of that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK already, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no stick. And anyway, I'm having too much fun. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least now we know that WP:POINT without a doubt applies to you, and that we should stop giving you the attention you crave. This is my last reply to your nonsense. LHM 22:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We really are working at different levels here. That was my poor attempt at a joke. You didn't get it. Not your fault. But that it led to further insults from you was unfortunate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo48: you responded to my statement about policy with your personal opinion about what really belongs in a "quality encylopaedia". Essentially no one here shares your opinion. Meanwhile, you did not address my statement about policy. Again, rather than admit that yes, you have misunderstood policy, you are pointlessly running off in some irrelevant direction, merely wasting everyone's time. You're posting here because it's fun to share your contrarian opinions? You're a self-admitted troll. Choor monster (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

When did you last read the pages of a quality encyclopaedia apart from Misplaced Pages. (Which is sadly becoming more tabloid every day itself.) Maybe Britannica? The print version, of course.HiLo48 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Complete non sequitur, as it is utterly irrelevant to this discussion what makes you sad, what you think about Brittanica (whose online version is not great at all), or whether you prefer print encyclopedias to online ones. LHM 18:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I love it when you effectively repeat what I've said as a way of arguing against me. (Agreeing about the print version of Brittanica, for example.) I am interested in making Misplaced Pages a quality encyclopaedia, not a collection of trivia. This is a fundamental goal of the project. HiLo48 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding detail on one's immediate family is NOT trivia. You know that, and please do not condescend this website or its editors. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME does not apply to Chelsea Clinton's daughter, line by line

I posted the following on Talk:Chelsea Clinton while the above was closed.

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.

• Actually, CCM is not being "discussed" at all, let alone in terms of a single event. She is mentioned, being a highly relevant bit of her mother's bio. I believe this is different enough to matter, but if not, note that it merely says "Caution should be applied". Not, do not name.

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, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

• Totally irrelevant here. Even so, in such an extreme case, policy is merely "it is often preferable to omit it", not obligatory policy.

When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

• This is just a weight issue, but apply WP:SNOW: her name will get more than a "brief appearance" over time. It will appear again and again.

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

• The daughter is of course directly involved in the article's topic.

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

• A presumption is something to apply when you otherwise do not know what the situation is. In this case, we absolutely know what the situation is regarding privacy of the name: it does not exist whatsover. The parents and grandparents have made their decision, and this decision has been very widely reported. Had there been no reports, or just one or two minor reports, we'd be obligated to make the presumption in favor of privacy. But as I mentioned, this does not apply in this situation.

The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.

• That's right, the name may certainly appear. It boils down, once all the BLP concerns are properly satisfied, to editorial discretion. If you are claiming this sentence from policy is relevant, you are agreeing that there are no BLP issues.

However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

• They are properly sourced.

Choor monster (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again. What caution are you applying? HiLo48 (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Again??? There is no "again", as there was no discussion over there, just you claiming you're right, without giving anyone a clue how that could possibly be.

As it is, the "caution" in this case is to see if some closely involved family member is trying to maintain privacy regarding the name. Or if most of the mainstream media is deliberately avoiding the name. Or if some court or other government actor has issued a gag order. And to make sure WP:RS have indeed named the name. Choor monster (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The media you refer to is in one country and the content is pure recentism. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. Misplaced Pages IS global and long term. The child's opinion cannot be obtained. I see no evidence that you are applying any caution. Caution would guide us to leave out the kid's name. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Now it seems you're just flinging completely unrelated blue links at the proverbial wall, hoping one sticks. This isn't "recentism", it's not overly newsy, and it doesn't matter that the baby's "opinion can not be obtained." Please drop the stick. LHM 22:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's recentism, of the most obvious kind. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If we devoted a section to the birth, sure. But that kid will be Chelsea's kid her whole life, and even after, she'll have a particular name on her tombstone. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

What we see here is HiLo48 has completely conceded he has absolutely no objection based on WP:BLPNAME. He made one lame objection (what "caution"?) and was told what "caution": the cautions explicitly asked for in the policy, and all obviously not relevant. Rather than face up to this, he runs off and comes up with another imaginary objection, based on zero comprehension of policy. First off, there's WP:RECENTISMISNOTPOLICYOREVENAGUIDELINE. That's right, it's just an essay, offering some intelligent warnings. Even worse, WP:RECENTISM clearly supports the inclusion of the name. It begins by defining recentism:

Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention

Got it? Somehow mentioning the birth of a daughter, without the name, this shows respect for the "long-term, historical view", but including the name doesn't? I, for one, don't see how. Anyway, even if this is recentism, the essay continues with the possible dangers:

possibly resulting in:

• Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
• Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
• The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Misplaced Pages consensus.

So let's see. Are there any articles now overburdened with documenting a controversy as it happens, thanks to the name? No. Have any articles been created on flimsy, transient merits, thanks to the name? No. Have the timeless facets of Chelsea Clinton now become muddled or diffused? No. So the good news (except for editors who can't bother to read, let alone comprehend, policy, guidelines, essays) is that "recentism" is not a problem here. In fact, the essay goes on to say:

Recentism is a symptom of Misplaced Pages's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer.

That's right. We are encouraged by this essay to include breaking news, so long as it is properly "vetted and counter-vetted". The essay goes on to explain examples of where recentism was a problem, and how it was solved. For example, the effects of Hurricane Katrina were overwhelming New Orleans related articles. The solution (not deletion, by the way) but the creation of a separate article.

So, what's your next non-BLP complaint? WP:BIAS? By mentioning the name we are not giving a proper world perspective on the issue of the baby? Really, you're that ridiculous. Choor monster (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not conceded that I have absolutely no objection based on WP:BLPNAME. HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course you have. That's what running away from a clear refutation of your utterly lame response to a direct explanation of BLPNAME means in this case, off to some other complaint, apparently picked at random, certainly picked without bothering to even read what the relevant "essay" (not policy, not guideline) even said in the first-place means. Choor monster (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a Canadian one, with the name in the subheadline. Here's a British one, with the name in the headline. Here's an Australian one, with the name in the lead sentence and photo caption. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Here's a South African one about her campaign to stop diarrhea in Nigeria. No mention of what's-her-name on that site. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Here's India Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That Australian one is classic Murdoch tabloid style. (He virtually controls the tabloid press in Australia. It's no doubt why I didn't see this news. I avoid his publications.) The CBC and BBC ones less so, but I will observe again that even those outlets are today far less formal than they used to be. I still wonder how we should deal with the particular obsession in one country for its elected public figures' families. There is no way the grandchild of an ex-Australian Prime Minister would crack a mention like this. (John Howard's kids don't even have articles of their own.) Doubt if it would happen in the UK for its PM. I suspect we're seeing more coverage from the BBC of this American "royal baby" than they would ever give to the grandchild of an ex-PM of their own. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, maybe the newspapers have gone to shit/leaned toward America. How should we deal with it? Dismantle the Murdoch and AP empires and build our own. Until then, we'll just have to reflect the way the English world media currently works. Trying to keep one baby nameless in one sentence in one article won't do anything to turn the tide. I don't say this often, but resistance is futile. The Australian one is from AP, by the way. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

And Sydney MH and The Age and ... Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We still need the newspapers, I agree, but we, the editors, have editorial control here. We don't have the same demands as the daily papers. We choose whether something is due. I'm still thinking out loud (well, in text really) about this cultural difference between the USA and the rest of the world. It does seem that the whole world is more excited right now about an ex-US President's grandkid than they ever would be about a similar birth in their own countries. Bet you no-one will ever post anything about John Howard's grandchildren. He was Australia's PM for eleven years, so pretty significant historically. And yes, he has grandchildren. But not even his kids have articles. We're obviously talking about a different standard for writing about the descendants of elected officials in one country when compared with others. Maybe it's valid. It doesn't feel right to me. And all the irrational shouting up above about how obvious it is actually pushed me away from that view. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The community has already decided how to deal with this issue. I've posted many examples of the precedents that prove that long-established community consensus is that if there is reliable sourcing for the names of a BLP's children, those names are included. And it's quite rich that you accuse others of "irrational shouting." Quite rich, indeed. LHM 00:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say many people (let alone the world) are "excited" about this kid. Maybe a bit, four days ago. Pretty much the only reason we're talking about her on Misplaced Pages now is you. Compared to Prince George and his unborn sibling, this one's a fart in a windstorm. If you feel like adding Howard's (grand)children's names with an RS, that'd probably be fine. But if nobody wants to, nobody wants to. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, October 1, 2014 (UTC)

Okay enough - Proposed wording of RFC

It's clear that this argument will continue incessantly on various articles. I think we need a well-publicized RFC to see where the wider community stands. Here is my proposed wording:

1. Should Misplaced Pages mention the names of non-notable minor children in the biographies of their parent(s) or guardians?
2. If yes, what are the sourcing requirements for such a mention?

Thoughts? --NeilN 14:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think this RFC is not particularly useful, since the answer to #1 is "sometimes", and the answer to #2 is "reliable ones." There is long precedent for the names of the children of particularly famous individuals to be included in their articles, as long as those names are reliably-sourced. (I have listed many examples at various points in this discussion.) There is no precedent to simply remove such names. Should we be including such names when the only sourcing is poor, and the subject of the BLP is not particularly famous (say, an academic at a university)? No. But there is simply no support, either in policy or by precedent, to remove all such names. LHM 15:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We have editors who think "sometimes" doesn't cut it, that non-notable minor children should not be mentioned at all. Perhaps a new question between 1 and 2? If yes, what are the requirements to rate a mention? --NeilN 15:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

    The consensus above was that "sometimes" and "reliably sourced", combined with the vast precedent, was more than enough. If you insist on opening a formal RFC on this, I will of course express what policy and precedent tell us to do, but I just think it's a waste of time, given that consensus above and vast precedent settles the discussion. A couple of editors refusing to acknowledge the consensus and precedent doesn't merit an RFC, in my opinion. LHM 15:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

    • It's not just a "couple of editors". Looking at the diffs and history, it's clear that other editors share the same view. --NeilN 15:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

      I count two who were employing an WP:IDHT strategy. I count maybe one or two others who expressed very qualified reservations. Other than that, most editors were agreeing that given the vast precedent and the reliable sourcing, that certain names of children of BLPs were acceptable. Consensus does not mean unanimity, Neil. LHM 15:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

      , , --NeilN 16:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We're not talking about "garden variety celebs", we're talking about famous people, who have not expressed any desire to keep their children's names private, and who (in many cases) actually make public announcements regarding the names of their children, and whose children's names have appeared in reliable sources. Misplaced Pages will look quite foolish if we refuse to print the names of such, given wide coverage in reliable sources, and no policy precluding it. LHM 16:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Short, sweet, to the point. This does need to attract a wider audience for comments. The only change I would make is to include grandparents (as in the case of Chelsea Clinton's baby, some were adding her name to the articles on both Bill and Hillary, from what I understand). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Could we also ask "If yes, should their names be included in the infobox?" which has been a source of contention. I would hate to have a major RFC that does not cover all the bases in hindsight. HelenOnline 15:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @HelenOnline: Infoboxes. Crap... :-) They're kind of weird because the core argument is that only notable people should appear in them. I've seen boxes with only one parent, boxes listing only notable minor children and cutting out the rest, etc. --NeilN 15:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a consesnsus above, and why no wait until it is closed? Regardless, the wording of this RfC is wrong, "notable" is vague, obviously the names of the children are notable, otherwise we would not know them -- whereas, WP:NOTABLE is not an issue for content of already existing articles. WP:NOTABLE is not in-issue within the details of articles, whereas NPOV's WP:UNDUE, is what you are talking about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. There is consensus above, and the issue of whether the names of non-notable (in the sense that they don't merit their own article) can appear in the articles of famous people is not an issue. Such names appear all the time in our articles, both in BLPs, as well as in articles that discuss events in which such people participated. LHM 16:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, even if you were to get an instruction-creepy "rule" (which we are usually loathe to do), we would still have individual article exceptions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think, from my understanding, the few editors above who were against including CC's child's name were against it in all cases, no exceptions, which seems absurd, but it's how I read their "arguments." LHM 16:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is not only about Clinton. Drmies, for example, has this to say on Roger Federer. --NeilN 18:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, I've been removing such names for years now, but like everything else on Misplaced Pages recently this had to become a "problem". The problem--if anyone cares what I think the problem is--is that for celebrities such names are always going to be given out to the media, whether the parent wants it or not, since that's part and parcel of being a celebrity. So there can be no "I don't want my child's name to become known", since the tabloids are always going to find out anyway--much better to just offer up that name and be done with it. So "reliably sourced" is utterly irrelevant: in all cases of celebrities such names are going to be reliably sourced. Cite me one single celebrity who kept a name secret--but you bet there's plenty who wished it didn't work this way, but the best thing they can do is to grant a special interview or photo session, and get it over with.

Second problem, for many, is "editorial discretion", explicitly mentioned in BLPNAME as a criterion for judging whether we should include a name (if reliably sourced). Whether it's obscene remarks (Jameis Winston or children's names (Federer, Clinton, whoever) or what someone said on a blog post (Irene Caesar), it seems that editorial discretion is rarely practiced here: there's always someone who says "it's sourced" and "you're censoring". (No, in none of those cases is censorship practiced.) I made reference to Borges's "On Exactitude in Science" and that applies here: the desire to include every single detail (verified or not) does away with any notion of editorial discretion, and this drive for exactitude leads to horrible writing, undue weight, and--yes--BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe entirely in using "editorial discretion" in such matters. I also think it's a bit strange to refer to the well-sourced names of a BLP's children as "every single detail (verified or not)." We're not talking about discussion regarding the minute details of what a person wore to a particular party (or something similar). We're talking about a very large part of who they are as a person. And it is an egregious misreading of BLPNAMES to conclude it in any way proscribes the inclusion of the names of non-notable children from the articles of BLPs. It gives editors the discretion to do so, should their be extenuating circumstances, such a poor sourcing, for example. But you seem to believe "editorial discretion" means "not including names of children of BLPs no matter what." That is not "discretion", it is proscription, and it is not supported by policy. LHM 19:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I would only leave out if intentionally concealed from public (which certainly hasn't happened with people like the Clintons) and/or no reliable sources exist that give detail. Like LHM, I would say that the requirement for inclusion is reliable sources. When reliably sourced, it simply leaves any article incomplete to not include detail- they ARE after all a prominent aspect of their lives. Warranting separate articles, of course, is an entirely different story. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  This is what none of the few editors arguing for blanket exclusion wants to admit: the notability of the children is not the issue--no one (that I've seen, anyway) is arguing that these non-notable children should have separate articles. The notability (or non-notability, as is usually the case) of the BLP's children is not, in any way, the issue at hand. LHM 19:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I should also add that becoming famous automatically means one will live under much more scrutiny than those who are not. Only become famous if you are prepared to have your life publicized. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Certainly children's names can be censored out at[REDACTED] if enough editors agree. There are other examples of wiki-censoring of that type, so it wouldn't be unheard of here. We had someone try to add... I think it was Serena Williams shoe size... and it was deemed too trivial even though it was sourcable. I don't think kids names fall under the same trivia (maybe their birthdays do – a year date seems good enough to me). Things like Encyclopaedia Britannica don't seem to have a problem with kids names/birthdates of celebrities. Misplaced Pages almost always has more info than a standard encyclopedia – it would seem a bit strange that we would give less info. If it's easily sourced (not tabloids) it seems to be no problem. Leave it to the individual editors involved as a content dispute rather than some safety/policy issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

andre lamothe

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

Does not meet notability requirements. Reads like a long advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.158.53 (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you have a point here. I'll do some pruning.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

How is a "contentions material of a person's life" consider as a biography?

The article on the Gamergate controversy is somehow consider as a biography, and is under editing protection. According to the definition of a biography of Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it's "usually written history of a person's life", a descriptions of part of a person's life no matter how contentious therefore CANNOT be a classified as a biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exefisher (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's policy dealing with biographies of living persons covers any Misplaced Pages article containing information about living persons. This is because biased, defamatory, and poorly sourced information can cause just as much damage in a non-biographical article as in a formal biography. As the Gamergate controversy article deals with information about living persons, it is clearly covered by the policy. --Allen3  11:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact WP:BLP covers any page on Misplaced Pages, it does not apply just to articles: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies...--ukexpat (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As a general note, I'm curious as to why articles on the living are more "sensitive", so to speak, than those on the deceased. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Legally, discussing the living and discussing the dead are very different things. In many jurisdictions, one cannot sue for libel or slander of a dead person. And as a moral thing, damaging the reputation of a dead person doesn't interfere with their livelihood. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yoel Romero's religion.

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

Synthesis, poor sourcing, poor writing and undue weight at Yoel Romero in "Personal life". Brought it up at the No Original Research noticeboard, but it may be better here, as there are multiple problems relating to a BLP. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, October 6, 2014 (UTC)

Ok so I removed a part sourced to apparently a video on a blog. I'm thinking the portion sourced to image files shouldn't be used. I question the reliability of about.com. I went to review the youtube videos but my net connection is lagging. I can only say that they don't seem to bring a copyvio issue. I'm not sure why they have posted the meaning of his name.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the Personal section. There was a lot of OR there and sources that did not support what they were citing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, looks much better. Hope it lasts this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

Is it any wonder hope rhymes with nope? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:37, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

I removed it once again. At this point they are edit warring. I've contacted them to attempt to explain . I've asked them to come here and make their case and get a consensus before adding the material back.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Collins

Various websites (such as TMZ) are making allegations regarding Stephen Collins, getting repeatedly added such as here: - eyes probably needed before it becomes a witch hunt full of salacious rumors... Echoedmyron (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed that page should be watched closely. If including such a claim, TMZ should certainly NOT be used as a reference. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Not so surprisingly there is currently edit-warring and disagreement at the talk page of this article. It is currently semi-protected, but an administrator might consider a short full protection and encourage people to try and find a consensus at the talk page. Iselilja (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Eyes are already on it (see article talk page discussion). At this time, there is an audio tape with a man's voice saying he molested a few girls forty years ago. The tape was provided by Collins' ex-wife as part of her divorce case. The voice has not been verified to be Collins nor has Collins made a confession or statement. There are a lot of allegedlys being used in this case. And, of course, the gossip sites are all over it with news agencies picking up the gossip site content. At this time, the article is partially protected. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephen_Collins is currently the recipient of a bunch of media attention due to the fact that he's been accused of molesting children and that apparently, there's a tape of him admitting to it obtained by TMZ. I'm not going to cite any sources because I'd be citing a ton of them, just search 'Stephen Collins' in Google News and you can see all that I'm talking about. What this mainly falls upon on BLP is that WP:BLPCRIME specifically states that For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Ultimately, due to all the media sources reporting on it, it was eventually added to the article to mention the allegation of molesting children. I removed the section about it, and there was some back and forth on the talk page. For a permalink linking to the personal life section (and the bit that I removed), see here. My main concerns of the material is that being accused of molesting children without a conviction or criminal charge is infinitely BLP material that should be removed. The editor who opposed me stated that he was a public figure and that the wide media exposure at least warranted response on the article. What should happen with this article? Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Please see the current discussion (the latter part of it, at least) at Talk:Stephen Collins#Molestation allegations. There is not edit warring going on now (hasn't been for more than 24 hours, once a minimal description and carefully crafted statement of the facts then known was posted), but there is a discussion now (since the reversion of that statement) prompted by Tutelary about whether those facts should appear in the article at all. I have made my case fully (and it is set forth accurately) in that discussion, so won't repeat it here. Dwpaul 00:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• I will only add that I'm not sure why Tutelary keeps latching on that bit about "relatively unknown" people. If Collins was relatively unknown, this story wouldn't have been around the world twice already. Dwpaul 00:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comments on previous comments: At the article talk page, there have been numerous comments made by the crowd who believes BLP policies should be pushed aside in order to get something in the article about the alleged molestations by Collins. At first I was okay with putting something in about this issue, now that editors are trying to "grow" the content into a section, I have to say, "whoa, wait a minute". Here is my take on what's been bandied about at the article talk page:

Dwpaul wrote: "we have every business in reporting reliably sourced information of potentially lasting significance" Uh, no. Just because something is reliably sourced it belongs in Misplaced Pages? No, no, and no. If that were the case, we'd be recklessly putting up all kinds of crap and calling it encyclopedic. That's even less true for a BLP. Like Tutelary has already said, read up on WP:BLP for a clear picture regarding the care we are to take in BLPs more than any other type of article in Misplaced Pages. Why? As you said yesterday, Dwpaul, there are liability issues to be considered. And let's not forget this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of gossip, rumor, trivia, and the latest news.

Secondly, Dwpaul wrote, "of potentially lasting significance". No, again. "Potentially" is second-guessing. Please read WP:CRYSTAL.

Next, "he is being investigated". So what? People are questioned by law enforcement everyday without being charged/booked. Does that make the investigation/questioning encyclopedic? Of course not. If he was charged, we would have something to put into the article. That he's being investigated is not encyclopedic content.

"an audiotape was released" Again, so what? Who's been verified/authenticated to be the person making the alleged confession on the tape? Oh, you mean they haven't said yet? Then it's not encyclopedic and doesn't belong in and Misplaced Pages BLP.

"broadcasts have been cancelled" Reruns of an old program have been cancelled. Big deal. Not encyclopedic.

"he has resigned a significant position on the national board of a major actor's union" Which happens how often that we don't put anything in Misplaced Pages about it? We don't put it in because... (yes, you guessed it) ...it's not encyclopedic.

ImprovingWiki wrote: "My view is that this is an important story" WE DON'T REPORT STORIES. This is NOT a newspaper or magazine or online blog, it's an encyclopedia.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• These are no longer "rumors" reported only by TMZ. There are a lot of reliable sources covering this, and no argument can be made that these facts are insignificant to Collins' biography. As such, reverting out a neutrally-worded (and short) summary of what the reliable sources say is a bit mystifying to me. LHM 00:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying that somebody 'allegedly molested children' is a BLP vio, straight and simple. Unless he's been convicted or been lodged some criminal charge, we should -not- be using the phrasing 'allegedly molested children' in any context. Additionally, in order to restore this material, you must seek out consensus per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Tutelary (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Collins is not a "relatively unknown" person. He is very well-known. What BLPCRIME is referring to is more along the lines of a notable, but relatively unknown academic, or something on those lines. Also, REQUESTRESTORE specifically mentions that one should make sure the section being restored is written neutrally and based on "high quality sources", both of which are the case here. BLP policy was never intended to be a bludgeon to keep relevant, well-sourced material--that also happens to not reflect well on the BLP--out of such articles. It was intended to keep poorly-sourced and/or irrelevant material out of such articles. LHM 01:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP was designed to ensure that BLPs would be fully compliant with npov, accusations and allegations and that another scandal regarding misinformation on BLPs wouldn't happen. (Forget the name) Stephen Collins is -not- a public figure like you call him, that would be a politician or a famous celebrity. That doesn't apply in any case. REQUESTRESTORE specifically entitles you to get consensus for the contested edit before restoring. BLP policy also meant that removing 'alleged child molester' wouldn't count for 3RR. Do you really consider it adequate to tell every single reader of that article that he 'allegedly' did it? No, we're not, because that violates BLP and all common decency. We're in a media buzz right now, and don't need to coincide with them, especially when we're calling some living person some derogatory term or implying heavily that he actually did it. Tutelary (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The statement you reverted implied no such thing, heavily or otherwise; unless you think, as you seem to, that a statement that someone is being investigated implies that they are guilty. Whether it does or not, it is the fact. Dwpaul 01:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding 'allegedly' to something doesn't make it euphemize all the stigma that it carries. This is the same reason we will not publish mere accusations that something has occured. We need sources there. In this, we need verification that the allegations are true to even include a mention of them, per WP:BLPCRIME. Sexual assault or Child molestation is a very, very serious crime and to accuse him of allegedly doing it is a BLP violation and should not be present in the article. BLPCRIME is unambiguous. ...or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. He's only been accused, and per BLPCRIME, should be omitted in its entirety. Tutelary (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The material you keep reverting just reports the fact that he's being investigated regarding that matter--which he incontrovertibly is. And are you seriously claiming that Stephen Collins "is -not- a public figure"? Because that seems a bit absurd. LHM 01:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Since he's not been charged with a crime or a criminal charge, we should omit it per BLPCRIME. Adding 'allegedly' to a very serious BLP violation doesn't make it suddenly not a BLP violation. Tutelary (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I could just as easily (and accurately) say that since he has never been formally accused of a crime, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. There has been no indictment, nor even (to our knowledge) any legal (at least not criminal) accusation of misdoing. However, I would think that was an overly literal reading of that guidance, and I think you are just as much being overliteral to the other extreme. Dwpaul 01:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You would be agreeing with me. BLPcrime specifically excludes including allegations or accusations that a person has committed a crime. Sexual assault or molestation is a crime. There's no charge or conviction. Tutelary (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Would saying something like "Collins was charged with molesting children" or "Collins was accused of molesting children" be any better? Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless something new has occurred, I'm pretty certain that at this point, he hasn't been charged with anything yet (so why would you want to say he has been charged?) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It was more of a general question as to whether "charged with" or "accused of" would be better than "allegedly". Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I would be against including it at the moment. Has anyone offered a source other than TMZ? Isn't TMZ a tabloid?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• TMZ is indeed tabloid-like in nature. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

They regard themselves as one, but only because information includes TMZ as source it cannot be discarded. Also read WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34#TMZ.com. VandVictory (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Given the incredibly high profile nature of this situation, I don't think BLP issues are a worry here. If this were an issue of an accusation and him denying it the situation might be different. There are substantial and notable aspects of his career that are affected by this and need to be included in the article, such as his removal from TV shows and movies. BLPCRIME specifically discusses "relatively unknown figures" -- there is no prohibition on included sourced NPOV info on already notable figures. This would mean not saying he is a child molester, as that would be improper, but acknowledging that there is an ongoing investigation. --Yaksar (let's chat) 07:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've collapsed the above section so the discussion about content can continue. I'm inclined to agree with others that WP is not a newspaper and there is no rush to include this info. The story is still developing. All of the articles I have seen say: "according to an audio tape acquired by TMZ". And even the entertainment site's narrative is based on the audio tape which has not been validated. The only other thing I've seen is a story saying that LA police had an earlier allegation and they investigated but found no grounds for action and that they are now reviewing the case to make sure they didn't miss anything. So I think some patience is needed. If Collins is arrested and charges are filed AND if that is widely reported in reputable sources like the LA Times (which it likely would be) then it can be a minor mention in the article per WP:BLPCRIME.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much my entire qualm with it. Nothing has been confirmed, the situation is dynamic and who knows, he could get off scot free tomorrow and the investigation finds no wrong doing, what would go in the article then? That's a discussion for when that happens, but I feel that some would argue that the accusation itself was notable--No. This BLP issue is stemming from the fact that you can't say allegedly or say that someone accused someone of doing something that is a crime--Innocent until proven guilty, as mandated by BLP. We can't include any mention of the overt allegations until there is a criminal charge or a trial going on. Nothing's happened so far. Tutelary (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your reading of BLP is incorrect, in my opinion. If "you can't say allegedly or say that someone accused someone of doing something that is a crime", then Michael Jackson would never have become a featured article because of this kind of section about the child molestation accusations. (For the record, I know that article is no longer a BLP, but it was at one point, and we didn't pretend like the allegations didn't exist.) LHM 18:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OSE is a useful essay because it encompasses differing circumstances and in this, Michael Jackson's difference was that he was actually charged with a crime and acquitted. A court case happened out of it. That has not happened here. Should the allegations have appeared and there not be a court case, and I'd been on that page, I'd have argued the same thing that they be left out in favor of BLP, regardless of how widespread they might be. Tutelary (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And you'd have been wrong to do so. The purpose of BLP policy is not to "scrub" articles of any negative information about the subject. The purpose is to keep such information out when it can't be reliably sourced and to keep it from becoming the focus of the article. Yours is a common misconception, though, and sometimes even manages to gain a tentative consensus, even though it is what I consider to be a major misreading of BLP policy. LHM 19:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who is misreading policy. We can't state that someone committed a crime without them being convicted of that crime. that's what BLP policy is inherently instructing us. It does note for a 'public figure' exception, which Stephen is not a politican or a highly famous celebrity and does not qualify. Anywho, I'm not gonna argue the hypothetical when I have the realism in my face right now. No allegations of any child molesting or anything of the sort should go into the article until a criminal charge or a conviction has occurred. Tutelary (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What I would like to know now is this: How long will the article remain fully protected? If not indefinitely, will someone issue a policy-based proclamation that every mention of this must (or even can) be reverted? Because I can almost certainly guarantee you that shortly after the protection is lowered some mention of it (likely many that will be poorly phrased and/or sourced and/or be outright BLP violations by any reading) will be repeatedly inserted in the article, and if we continuously revert those insertions, without a clear and concise policy statement to point to, we will simply (and not unreasonably) be accused of suppressing information merely to protect the subject's reputation. And for those spans of time between insertion and revert, multiple violations of BLP and probably other policies will be present in the article, which is currently seeing page views on the order of 120,000 per day. Dwpaul 19:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Only 10,000 of which are me. ;-) Dwpaul 19:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Please point to even one editor who is advocating that the article "state that someone committed a crime." Literally not one editor is asking for that. What we are advocating is that Misplaced Pages not pretend like there's no investigation regarding Collins. It is not against BLP policy for a BLP's article to reflect that the person is being investigated regarding a crime before "a criminal charge or conviction has occurred." LHM 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've already made myself quite clear on this. What the allegations are saying is that he has committed a crime against children. Allegations, accusations, that he's committed this crime. This is specifically addressed in WP:BLPCRIME which I'm sure you're familiar with right now. ...editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Suggesting that he 'allegedly' did a crime is saying or accusing that he did do it, a violation of BLPcrime and should not be present in the article in any form until he's been charged or convicted. Why is that such a harsh standard? As I said, this situation is dynamic and could change. Tutelary (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You consistently and quite conveniently ignore the beginning of that sentence, which is: For relatively unknown people. Collins is not relatively unknown by any standard. And it says must seriously consider. This has been very seriously considered for several days now, here and on the article's Talk page, and unless you can tell me how this is going to work in a practical sense (see above), I think we have given it quite enough consideration. Dwpaul 20:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I echo Dwpaul's concern, noting, with interest, that you left out the portion of the above quote that clearly does not support your interpretation: "For relatively unknown people," it says, and Collins is not "relatively unknown." If you are going to quote policy, please do not snip it in such a way that it misconstrues the meaning of the policy. LHM 20:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I did just mention it under the influence of 'public figures', which I mentioned that he is of not. He's not a politician and he's not a famous celebrity. Tutelary (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you define "famous celebrity"? And where did you find that as the definition of "relatively unknown"? Dwpaul 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That is certainly a novel definition of "relatively unknown", when it includes a man who spent many many years as the face of a popular TV show. LHM 20:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no response to my question, let me point out why Tutelary's interpretation of "relatively unknown" is completely wrong. WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown refers the reader to WP:Who is a low profile individual for clarification on this question. I would like Tutelary, or anyone else, to point out even one of the criteria (of which only one must be satisfied) for a "high profile" individual which Stephen Collins does not meet, and did not meet prior to the current scandal.
Also, I am still waiting for someone — anyone — from the "exclude all mention" camp to explain how that will work in terms of implementing, explaining and defending the continuous reversion activity that will be needed to maintain the state in which they think the article should remain. Dwpaul 21:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to clarify my earlier statement. I still support that WP is not a newspaper and we should take our time and let the story develop. However, WP:BLPCRIME pertains to people who are relatively unknown and whose privacy needs to be protected. However for a public figure like Collins, WP:PUBLICFIGURE is the applicable guideline and when the allegations become wide spread and reported in multiple, reliable third party sources then we should consider some modest insertion of content. Keeping in mind that this is one event in the context of 65 years of life and a 40 year career. At the same time we have to be careful of WP:UNDUE weight and WP:RECENTISM.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text

Because Collins is a very notable public figure and the coverage of the allegations have now spread to multiple mainstream sources I think some addition to the article may be appropriate per WP:PUBLICFIGURE which says: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out

• USA Today - Oct 9, Stephen Collins, you might have heard, is under investigation for child molestation charges.
• Fox News - Oct 9 Stephen Collins –aka Reverend Eric Camden—is being investigated for child molestation,
• People magazine - Oct 8 On Tuesday, audio files, purporting to be Collins confessing to having had inappropriate sexual conduct with underage girls, were leaked to the media.
• Time magazine - Oct 8 The former 7th Heaven star confessed to molesting young girls to his estranged wife in a recording released by TMZ Tuesday. Collins is currently being investigated by the New York Police Department.
• LA Times - Oct 8 Los Angeles police began investigating "7th Heaven" actor Stephen Collins in 2012 after receiving a report from a woman who claimed she had been molested by Collins 40 years earlier, a police captain said Wednesday............The New York Police Department revealed Tuesday that special victims detectives were investigating Collins, 67, after celebrity news site TMZ posted an audiotape in which a man purported to be the actor confessed to sexually abusing three girls. TMZ said the tape was recorded by Collins' estranged wife during a therapy session with the actor. The man on the tape mentioned two victims in New York and one in Los Angeles, TMZ said.

Based on the content from the above reliable sources I would propose a one or two sentence summary such as this:

• In October 2014 the New York Police Department began investigating Collins after an audio tape, that purported to contain Collins admission of child molestation, was leaked to the media. At that time the Los Angeles Police Department reported it had investigated Collins in 2012 after receiving a claim of a molestation 40 years earlier, however they were not "able to substantiate the allegation."
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The LAPD has said they were not able to substantiate that a crime had occurred in LA in response to the report which they investigated. The NYPD has made no such statement. Your text invites conflation of the two investigations. And I think that at this time your introduction of yet another variation into this discussion is unhelpful. The current discussion must reach consensus about whether the scandal should be mentioned at all before we start trying to rewrite the text that introduces it. And it will take only one or two editors to completely corrupt your effort to arrive at a NPOV expression of the facts. How will we address that? Dwpaul 21:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, a technicality: We do not know whether the NYPD investigation began before or after the tape was "leaked" (and was it, and by whom?). We have heard that a complaint was filed in New York, but we do not know when it was filed. NYPD confirmed only that it was investigating a complaint. Dwpaul 21:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there are multiple sources saying he is under investigation and that needs to be considered. As for the unresolved investigation by the LAPD, maybe that sentence could be left out for now. I also share your fear that the insertion of minimal text will open the flood gate for the expansion of the coverage in the article and create undue weight but I don't think we can totally ignore the widespread news coverage per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I look forward to comments and insights from others.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I do see now where you contributed your thoughts in this section to the question of whether the information should be introduced at all. Dwpaul 21:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I support the tone and length of the proposed text, as it takes a NPOV, is not overlong, and is well and reliably sourced. LHM 23:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Though I think it is only marginally better, if at all, than the text that was removed (and not because I wrote it), I support this (with the concern I expressed). Certainly better than pretending that nothing has happened. Think there should also be some mention of why TV viewers won't be seeing him for a while, and his resignation from the national leadership of the major US actor's union, both of which were in the removed text. Dwpaul 23:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I still don't think anything needs to be said in the article about the investigation until he's charged with something. If he ever is. Put in the article that he resigned from SAG, but in no way should there be anything that ties the two things together. Until Collins releases a statement in regard to his reasons for resigning, if he ever does, nothing should suggest to a reader that the two things (investigation and resignation) are connected. Until he's charged with something, it's a non-issue in regard to encyclopedic content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• i would support this text, as it accurately summarizes the available significant reliable information without violating any of our policies and while maintaining the correct amount of neutrality.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• I still have an issue with the text because if the allegation wasn't supported by the police, then why even include it? And then there's also the question of the first sentence. I'm feeling that it is still a BLP violation because the admission of guilt is not collaborated by a public statement by the person and has not been confirmed to be an exact admission of wrongdoing (or independently verified by audio experts of similar people). Though honestly, all this conflict is making me want to fold...as a counter proposal, could we just include the fact that he's under investigation with the police, with no mention of anything relating to children? Of course I can already see the responses, since it's omitting what's the major bit of the happening that the media has had a field day with and the main issue of contention can be controversial in itself. Tutelary (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• I support the proposed text. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Requesting swift admin closure and a statement of consensus on this dispute ASAP as the subject article is now fully unprotected. Dwpaul 16:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• FYI, there is some commentary on this incident at Faye Grant. Kelly 17:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• A little late to the conversation but I support the proposed text.LM2000 (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

WANTED: Experienced, uninvolved editor or admin to close and summarize this thread. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And so it begins. Dwpaul 23:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Lonely Christopher

This appears to be written by the author himself--and is largely self-promotional/irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.31.146.78 (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been deleted. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, October 8, 2014 (UTC)

Investigative Project on Terrorism

This isn't really a BLP issue, and is best discussed through other means of dispute resolution. LHM 17:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)}}
A template for the topic Islamophobia is in this article. Does this represent a BLP violation?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about BLP, but it's a bit misleading. The article says this Emerson guy is against Islamic terrorism. That's hardly the same as being against Islam. I fixed the bit that implied he still thinks Muslims blew up the Oklahoma building. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, October 8, 2014 (UTC)

The Center for American Progress seems to think the organization is Islamophobic, but judging from their article, they're hardly objective observers. I've removed the box, as it seems to rely solely on that claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, October 8, 2014 (UTC)

There are other aspects of the article that also create potential BLP violations because of V and NOR issues, BLPGroup, undue weight, and Coatrack, all of which are magnified by the template. RS issues also plague this article because the sources that mention IPT point back to Steven Emerson, or involve trivial mention. IPT inherited Emerson's notability, and relies heavily on original sources published at the IPT website. With the exception of a few secondary sources considered to be biased, everything else relies on IPT's own press releases, Emerson's television interviews, and testimony at congressional hearings. There are not any reliable third party sources to my knowledge. From 1995 to mid 2006, Emerson worked as an independent television reporter, self-proclaimed terrorism expert, and documentary filmmaker for his own production company. He headed up his own think-tank called the Investigative Project. The website is called the Investigative Project on Terrorism, and claims to be a nonprofit organization founded by Steven Emerson in 1995 - unverifiable. However, what is verifiable is the fact that in mid-2006, Emerson founded The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, which is a legally organized charitable organization recognized by the IRS as a Sect 501(c)3 non-profit foundation. The Foundation purportedly funds Emerson's terrorism work, and staffs a managing director, and a couple of other individuals referred to as Shillman Fellows.

Following are a few excerpts from comments made by a collaborator when we tried to expand the article and correct the RS issues. (diffs follow comments):

1. I've actually been surprised at how very little information there is about IPT itself in reliable sources. I'd expected there to be quite a bit more given how much it's mentioned. The sources are all about Emerson with passing mentions of IPT and people who work for IPT with passing mentions saying that they work for them. If this were a software company I'd be sorely tempted to send it to AfD, but obviously that's not going to end well. I guess we soldier on.
2. The more I look for sources the more I think this whole IPT thing is a front for Steven Emerson and ought to be redirected to him. Anyway, thoughts on the relative weight that this Boston marathon material ought to have in the article?
3. The trouble is that they don't do anything. Really, I've looked and looked for sources, but they're all about Emerson, not IPT. I agree that it needs to be summarized. Do you have a proposal?

Two more excerpts from comments made by two editors at an ANI over the BLP issue: (diff follows both comments):

1. Well the BLP violation may stem from more than merely saying that it was said. I can see a good argument that it violates WP:UNDUE to put the claim that the day after the Oklahoma City Bombing Emerson suggested that it might have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists in the lead section of an article about a think tank Emerson founded. In which case it probably would also violate WP:BLP.
2. As I recall, pretty much everyone jumped to the conclusion that it was foreign terrorists. It was a reasonable assumption at the time. It never occurred to most of us that someone like McVeigh would do something like that. Now we know better. Supposing the BLP in question actually did say it, why does it matter 19 years later?

Final two excerpts from comments made by two other editors: (diffs follow both comments)

1. I'm in favor of moving this article to Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation as you suggest, and having the Emerson biography corrected to reflect accurate secondary sources (rather than self-serving primary sources) but I'm not so hot on the idea that all of Emerson's former activities should be fully removed from this article. We should tell the reader what came before, and how it is related.
2. I'm able to find more hits when naming Emerson rather than IPT, since it seems to be sort of a one-man op.

There is much more, but the above information should suffice to set the proper stage for discussion of something as important as a BLP violation. Atsme☯ 04:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the entire article is a bit problematic. I don't think Misplaced Pages would be lacking without it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:29, October 8, 2014 (UTC)

I kind of feel like this thing needs to be stubbed and stripped, if not merge/redirected to Stephen Emerson. I don't see what's really notable about it, and with the exception of one Salon article, pretty much all the sources are polemic from either side — right-wing sources think the group is doing great work investigating alleged terrorism and left-wing sources think the group is peddling Islamophobic conspiracy theories. There's hardly any neutral sources here, which suggests it's not particularly notable from a mainstream perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well this a crazy request and all but could we stick to the subject of BLP? The subject of notability was taken on recently at AFD. Now Islamophobia template. While of course there of course is the matter of the template on the page, there is also the template itself. The template itself contains a link to Investigative project on terrorism. It is located on a section titled organizations. Does the presence of Investigative project on terrorism on this template represent a BLP violation?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because the organization is not a living person. Organizations are not entitled to the same protections that we give to living people. Statements about Emerson personally might implicate BLP, but statements about an advocacy organization he works for would not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment (out of chronological order) - it doesn't have to be a living person to be a BLP violation. See WP:BLPGROUPS: A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. IPT is a small group inextricably linked to Emerson, a legal person, which makes the template a BLP violation. Sorry for adding this 4 days later, (also included it below), but a noticeable unfamiliarity with the applicable section of BLP policy made it necessary as it also caused the hasty closure of this discussion which was later reversed. Atsme☯ 21:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

So the template in the article does not present a BLP violation?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPGROUPS - The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. The template is without question a BLP violation under BLPGroups. The V and NOR issues add to it, but it's not just the template, although it is the worst violation. If anything, "IPT" might be considered a group when it was Emerson's think-tank prior to 2006, but it is not verifiable, and I hardly consider the IPT website as a "high-quality source." It's NOR. Common sense tells us the article is about Emerson. IPT inherited his notability - which not only raised the notability issue for IPT's existence, the fact that the notability is about Emerson makes it a BLP violation. The article relies heavily on information and actions by Emerson. User:Callanecc tried to explain to me the reasons behind the Gamergate controversy as follows: If you have a look at the wording of the discretionary sanctions and WP:BLP both apply to edits and articles which have biographical content which is what Gamergate controversy is about at it's base level. Diff here: I'm not sure the BLP violations are comparable, but I would think the exclusivity of IPT to Emerson, and the V and NOR issues are what create the problems. Since there is no verifiability of IPT being anything but Emerson's own small group, if it can even be considered a group prior to 2006, the material contained in the article is definitely biographical, particularly the History and mission section. Atsme☯ 22:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Investigative project on terrorism was founded in 1995. They state this themselves. Steven Emerson states this. CAIR states this. CAP states this. NEWMAX states this. The only sources that you have found that state otherwise suggest that it didn't exist at all until 2006. That was simply two sources. One of those source used the other as evidence. Drop that stick at any time or make a case that isn't solidly original research. IPT inherited it's notability? Isn't that the same argument that you used in the AFD? It wasn't compelling there so why now is it suddenly supposed to be compelling? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all points made by Atsme with respect to the article and template, above. And it does seem that IPT is inextricably linked to the Emerson guy. DocumentError (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the merger/deletion debate has been recently and thoroughly discussed in other places, including Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Investigative Project on Terrorism (closed as "keep" on 30 September) and Talk:Steven Emerson#Merger proposal dated September 2014. Discuss here. (closed with a "clear consensus against the proposed merge" on 25 September). --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, please. You just provided incorrect information. The merge proposal was closed in July, not September, and the proposal was not "thoroughly" discussed. The reviewer, User:Sunrise, closed with the following comments: Note that this close does not evaluate whether the articles are compliant with policy (e.g. WP:NOR); it would be a good idea for the editors here to resolve these issues, but they would only have become relevant to the merger question if so much of the article was noncompliant that nearly all of it had to be deleted, and arguments to this effect have not been presented. The arguments are being presented now, only this time we're discussing WP:BLP WP:BLPGROUPS violations which is probably what should have been addressed back in July along with the NOR issues.

Serialjoe just referred to Steven Emerson and the self-published IPT website as sources in his rebuttal to my comment above. I suggest reviewing WP:SPS. Where are the third-party reliable sources? Where are the reliable secondary sources? He listed CAIR and CAP - two biased sources. Read the headline in the January 2014 CAIR article: . Whose name is in the headline? There's also the issue of WP:RSUW, and WP:SPS. Where are the "high-quality sources"? But wait - how about Newsweek? Clarke's secret work with private researcher Steven Emerson is among a number of revealing disclosures in the ex-White House aide's new book, . Oh, my. Did that read "private researcher Steven Emerson"? Does being a private researcher make one a terrorism expert? And how exactly does Emerson being a private researcher, and investigative reporter fit in with the "group", or "organization" being founded in 1995? It certainly doesn't explain away the BLP issue, that's for sure. Also, if the template doesn't present a BLP issue, why isn't there one on Steven Emerson? What about the biographical material in the History and mission section of the IPT article, and the NOR and V issues which are two of the three core content requirements that must strictly be adhered to according to WP:BLP? And what about the statement under the Funding section of IPT: IPT is funded via the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization established in 2006, and largely operated via SAE Productions, a Delaware-based company founded by Emerson in 1994. Tell me again about the "common name" argument, and how Serialjoe concluded that IPT, the Investigative Project, and the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation are one in the same? Serialjoe even created the following redirects: The_Investigative_Project and The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. The BLP issues and noncompliance to NOR, RS, and V, are clear. How long are we supposed to let such blatant BLP violations remain? Atsme☯ 02:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Responding to the question first posed, the template applied to that article does not appear apt, but rather an exercise of POV. Epeefleche (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually that was not incorrect at all. A merge proposal that was opened due to your actions was closed in September. There was also your merge proposal in July. Also there is the AFD where you mention the same stuff you are pushing here. The investigative project, the investigative project on terrorism foundation, and the investigative project on terrorism are the same thing. Have you read their website where they solicit funds? They themselves say that IPTF is its fund-raising arm. That common name argument? You mean the one where when you title an article you use the most common name? wp:common name <That one? It's not as much an argument as it is a[REDACTED] policy. When we read the CAIR blogs headline should we avoid reading the article? Where it talks about the investigative project on terrorism? Where it's made clear that this the blog is about an Article released by IPT? Do we just read the headline? You mention wp:sps but have you read it? And did you happen to read the policy just under it WP:SELFSOURCE? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually the statement about the merge is incorrect and misleading, not to mention irrelevant to this discussion, but for the sake of accuracy I've provided the diff showing how the same proposal materialized twice by mistake: . I thought the 2nd proposal was made by another editor because my June proposal had already been discussed and closed in July, leaving issues unanswered as I accurately mentioned above. Atsme☯ 14:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to add - if the comments made above reference the delete proposal I requested on September 22nd, 2 days before you filed an ARB to topic ban me and diverted my attention away from the delete request, well sir, that is a horse of a different color. Attempting to combine the various requests to make it appear as one in the same is as misleading as your attempts to combine the various names Emerson used throughout his career as one article, and pretending it's an "organization". Then, when I was forced to switch my attention to your baseless ARB request, my delete request was closed after only 7 days of discussion. Great gaming strategy. Atsme☯ 17:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the many reasons stated above by other editors who recognize the BLP violations, following is my summary as a collaborating editor of IPT who contributed over 58% of the prose:

1. The justification for "common name" is false and misleading, and lends more credence to the BLP violations because it establishes the exclusive connection to Steven Emerson as an independent researcher, investigative reporter, and terrorism expert.
2. The IPT Foundation was founded in 2006 by Steven Emerson who also serves as its Executive Director. The IPT Foundation is the only recognized nonprofit charitable foundation designated as such by the IRS. Regardless, even if IPT is inaccurately recognized as a nonprofit organization founded by Steven Emerson in 1995, it has no notability of its own, and the BLP issues would still apply according to WP:BLPGROUPS. Research for reliable sources has consistently produced trivial mention of IPT with the primary focus on Steven Emerson, independent terrorism expert/investigative reporter. Newsweek, a high quality reliable source, established the identity of Steven Emerson as a private researcher in an article they published in March 2004. It substantiates the exclusivity of Emerson to IPT which is the norm, not the exception. It further establishes a reliably sourced basis for the template being a BLP violation.
3. The information provided in IPT is highly dependent on unreliable self-published sources, including IPT's own website, original research from documents presented at congressional hearings, Steven Emerson blogs, and IPT press releases. There are no reliable third-party sources cited. It also relies on information from biased political pressure groups such as CAIR, CAP, and the Heritage Foundation. The reason the "undue weight" tag was added to the CAP reference was explained well by an uninvolved editor, User:Vfrickey: . That explanation also draws attention to a potential WP:Terrorist violation which would also involve the template.
4. Serialjoepsycho's original protests to the template can be seen here: The reasons he stated then remain the same today: "Perhaps it should be changed regardless. Again as written it makes it seem as if this organization is Islamophobic. Is there anyway to change it? This is not a confirmed Islamophobic organization. From what I can tell in the article it is only alleged." Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
5. All of the violations that make IPT a BLP violation also apply to Steven Emerson. When I tried to correct the information, Serialjoe continuously reverted it.
6. I attempted to create a corrected article using accurate reliably sourced information in an attempt to eliminate the BLP violations. The draft can be seen here: Unfortunately, I was met with further resistance. Serialjoepsycho quickly created redirects Investigative Project, The Investigative Project, and The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation to derail my efforts in creating a corrected article. He further established his intent to move the template to the new article disregarding all input from other editors who kept informing him of the BLP violations. Atsme☯ 15:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• That's another really long rant. Do you have a BLP issue to discuss? BTW my comments that you are quoting as a protest are actually a question. A question that went unanswered. A question that has been answered actually outside of your rants, here. You've moved the goal post so many times that I wonder if you recall what the goal post was there in that RFC? NPOV. Oh and the AP Stylebook. That question got lost somewhere in that RFC between your rants, accusations of bad faith, and threats to take it elsewhere if you didn't get your way.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ooops. Guess I hit a nerve. Ranting with important information is far better than rambling nonsense like you are accustomed to doing, but please, let's not get off topic. On point: the obvious BLP violations that you have chosen to ignore. Atsme☯ 18:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you hit a nerve? No. Are you trolling or something? Could you stay on point? Do you have a BLP issue that you would like to discuss?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• This was brought here on the suggestion of Arbcom to ask if the Template:Islamophobia is a BLP when placed in the article. I had also hoped that any other BLP question could be raised. This this was not brought here to forumshop the issue of notability that was recently answered by AFD. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You brought it here, but you don't want discussion on the issues that creates the BLP violations? It isn't about deleting the article because of inherited notability so please stop dredging up past AfDs. The notability discussion here relates directly to WP:BLPGROUPS: The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. The individual is Steven Emerson, his notability, and not being able to draw a distinction between the so-called "group" and Steven Emerson. The fact remains...there is no distinction, and therein lies one of the biggest problems. I certainly hope editors who understand this issue will be more bold about confirming the BLP violation so we can close this section, and get on with editing. Atsme☯ 15:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the case you made in AFD. Prior you opened this issue in 2 of the 3 ANI's you've opened, a merge, delete and recreate proposal, a merge proposal opened on your behalf, and where ever else. AfD said it was notable. It doesn't need to be forumshopped here. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Following is my summary of this discussion using comments (and excerpts) from above, all of which clearly substantiates a WP:BLPGROUPS violation:

• Not sure about BLP, but it's a bit misleading. The article says this Emerson guy is against Islamic terrorism. That's hardly the same as being against Islam. I fixed the bit that implied he still thinks Muslims blew up the Oklahoma building. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
• The Center for American Progress seems to think the organization is Islamophobic, but judging from their article, they're hardly objective observers. I've removed the box, as it seems to rely solely on that claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
• I kind of feel like this thing needs to be stubbed and stripped, if not merge/redirected to Stephen Emerson. I don't see what's really notable about it, and with the exception of one Salon article, pretty much all the sources are polemic from either side — right-wing sources think the group is doing great work investigating alleged terrorism and left-wing sources think the group is peddling Islamophobic conspiracy theories. There's hardly any neutral sources here, which suggests it's not particularly notable from a mainstream perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with all points made by Atsme with respect to the article and template, above. And it does seem that IPT is inextricably linked to the Emerson guy. DocumentError (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Responding to the question first posed, the template applied to that article does not appear apt, but rather an exercise of POV. Epeefleche (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

To further summarize the WP:BLPGROUPS argument, following are the comments I included above regarding a recent ANI BLP discussion:

Two more excerpts from comments made by two editors at an ANI over the BLP issue: (diff follows both comments):

1. Well the BLP violation may stem from more than merely saying that it was said. I can see a good argument that it violates WP:UNDUE to put the claim that the day after the Oklahoma City Bombing Emerson suggested that it might have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists in the lead section of an article about a think tank Emerson founded. In which case it probably would also violate WP:BLP.
2. As I recall, pretty much everyone jumped to the conclusion that it was foreign terrorists. It was a reasonable assumption at the time. It never occurred to most of us that someone like McVeigh would do something like that. Now we know better. Supposing the BLP in question actually did say it, why does it matter 19 years later?

My closing statement: There are no high-quality sources, secondary or third party, that separate IPT from Steven Emerson. Substantial evidence confirming unreliable sources, and Emerson's exclusivity to IPT has been well established in this discussion. The template and all the other poorly sourced criticisms and allegations that point to Steven Emerson with trivial mention of IPT, including the template, are violations of BLP (BLPGROUPS). Atsme☯ 13:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Serialjoepsycho's closing statement: AfD has already and recently answered the question of notability. There's no reason to forum shop the issue of notability here. This noticeboard is for BLP issues and not a clearinghouse to shop issues that one has failed repeatedly to achieve a consensus on in other noticeboards and[REDACTED] processes. However the issue regarding the template is important. I do ask whomever closes this to determine if there is a consensus that the template in question does present a BLP violation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:BLPGROUPS defines this situation unambiguously as do the majority of comments in this discussion, particularly the unreliable sources used to justify placement of the template, and IPT being inextricably linked to Emerson. Atsme☯ 17:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's very interesting indeed. Though the prior closer didn't find that. One of the issues they closed it on was the actual forum shopping. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Atsme has come to my talk page to ask me what I am talking about above. Ok so This is a link to the response LHM gave to Atsme when questioning their prior close. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

To conclude that there's no BLP violation because IPT is not a living person demonstrates an unfamiliarity with a very important part of BLP policy. There was no mention of forum shopping. The BLP violations in IPT and the template are applicable according to WP:BLPGROUPS: The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. IPT is a small group inextricably linked to Emerson, a legal person. Those facts have been noted in the comments above, and during the ANI (BLP discussion) which drew attention to the BLP violations as noted above. The NOR issues and unreliable sources also contribute to the BLP violations per WP:BLPGROUPS. Hopefully the next closer will not be so hasty in drawing a conclusion that is not properly based on the correct policy. Atsme☯ 20:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No LHM did not use the words forum shopping. They said, "The discussion had devolved into a rehashing of the merge and delete discussions." I used the words forum shopping.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant and unrelated to the template's BLP violation per WP:BLPGROUPS. There's no ambiguity - it begins and ends with that policy. Atsme☯ 22:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Your argument begins and ends with an inherent notability argument that you brought up in AfD. It's made up of points you made in AfD and elsewhere. Forum Shopping notability here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Katie Jones (web entrepreneur)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved This issue appears to have been resolved. Feel free to remove this closure if further issues arise, or if you feel I've missed something in the discussion that needs further addressing. LHM 17:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Could someone with more experience than myself with BLP matters take a look at Katie Jones (web entrepreneur)? There seem to me to be any number of issues here, but given the number of people who've edited it and apparently not seen a problem, maybe I'm completely up the wrong tree. Mogism (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you specifically see as a BLP issue there?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed one line that was a problem, but do not see any problems with the rest of it. GB fan 20:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The sentence "She has not been struck dead by a higher power for irony, hubris, or hypocracy" which has just been removed, the lengthy and unsourced timeline, the fact that article about child abuse and legal disputes is sourced to a blog post, The Register, People magazine and Amazon... Mogism (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I would just cut the where are they now section. It reminds me of one of those cheesey VH1 bits about what happened to the cast of 90210 or what ever. Not only is it poorly sourced but it's hardly relevant. Ok you can buy her book on Amazon used for a cent. Ok so where do they sale it used for $2? That shouldn't have been put in anyway. The book has been renamed . Also check this out Katie.com. The timeline is unnecessary. You could cut it or check to see if you can find better sourcing.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have excised the "Timeline", "Where are they now" (both per the above) and "See also" (because the sole link is already in the article) sections.--ukexpat (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've cut it back further, removing the unsourced claims and the non-notable personal drama. I also recommend it be merged with the book article as Jones is not notable per WP:1E.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There still remains the issue of Katie.com which is an exact mirror of the Katie Jones as it was when it was brought here. Should it be cut as well or even just moved to articles for deletion or a speedy delete?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point. There is an ongoing merge discussion and I've suggested that Katie Jones be merged into the Katie.com article. Please join the discussion here. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I went to Katie.com, removed the timeline, where are they now section and some unsourced stuff.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Good, I expanded and reorganized the article with better sources and some additional sources which I placed as External Links.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Giorgio Antonucci | removing of the Start-Class assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

ResolvedNot really a BLPN issue, but seems to have been amicably resolved. LHM

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

Hello,

the article that I submitted to Afc has been accepted (in July) and classified as Start-Class. I basically translated the Italian page about Giorgio Antonucci (that is not considered a Start-Class article), then I continued to improve the page adding information and links. I am really surprised to see that the page is still considered a Start-Class article, despite the improvements made over the last months.

Could you please revise the assessment?

thanks

Footprintsinthesand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footprintsinthesand (talk • contribs) 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've upgraded it to C but its marginal. The sources provided are all in Italian and this is the English WP so most of the sources should be in English.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Scott Greenstein and some people I haven't heard of

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

Last time this article was on this noticeboard (this is the third time now), Off2Riorob said he had added it to his watchlist and would help with any future problems, but unfortunately he can't be with us here tonight. So I would welcome help from anyone else who has input on this conundrum.

As can be seen from the article history, there is someone who insists on re-inserting WP:UNDUE material into the article. The material relates to some talk-show host(?) I haven't really heard of, allegedly criticising the subject of the BLP for not letting two other people I haven't heard of into some event. Please opine wherever appropriate on whether this material should be included based on this sourcing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, needs secondary sources so we can ascertain significance. The article has a heck of a lot of name dropping in it, though. --NeilN 00:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

On my list now -- but too many editors regard BLPs as fair game for nonsense :( Collect (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Depuffed a tad. Collect (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Article about Kailash Satyarthi

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

ABOUT KAILASH SATYARTHI: "He became Prime Minister of India after conclusion of latest Lok Sabha elections in May 2014." WELL HE NEVER BECAME THE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA. PLEASE RECTIFY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.104.28 (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I can not find this sentence in the article, so I presume it has been removed already.--Auric talk 17:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Srdja Popovic

Certain users continue to vandalize the Srđa Popović (activist) page with libellous content about his supposed relationship with Stratfor and a Goldman Sachs investment banker. The editing has gone back and forth too many times to count. I continue to revise the page with a concise and accurate summary of the controversy, with many sources supporting both sides. Other users continue to detail allegations on the page that are not supported by the sources they are citing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwightkschrute91 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I am in the process of preparing a detailed response to this. In the meantime, Dwightkschrute91, you said you continue to revise the page-when is the first time you personally edited it? Were there times when you edited it as an unregistered user? GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Lee (politician)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved Article PRODed by Meatsgains. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Short article about a local politician. Quite possibly not notable, but not really A7-bait IMHO. But the problem is that the facts in the article are highly negative. They look to be sourced, but I get the feeling the article was written just to put the negative stuff here on WP. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that. Seems to not notable and it was all negative. Honestly I would consider opening an AfD or putting it up for speedy delete. He's a politician for a township of 4,873. He's a CEO of (i suppose) the company that ones that historical place. Neither of which seem to meet notability guidelines.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I PROD'd the page as subject is non-notable. Meatsgains (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Charles Lavine

Charles Lavine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Socks or meat puppets and possibly partisan editing of this politician's bio. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, what a horrible article. I've removed some of the worst of the garbage from it, but someone seems to have registered an account for the sole purpose of reverting me, funny that! Lankiveil 13:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC).

Kwame Kilpatrick

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved Collect removed material and photo that was in violation of WP:BLP. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Is a booking photo necessary or even allowed when we have (and have used for years) an ordinary photo (File:Kwame Kilpatrick.jpg)? I feel that this is a BLP violation of unnecessary disparagement. Rmhermen (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually - just something which would need a positive consensus as being the most representative image of the person. I also removed the gratuitous use of a prison address as his "residence" as being also something which is generally not done in a BLP. Collect (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The booking photo and prison address smack of either a poor attempt at humor and/or POV-pushing, neither of which is appropriate in any Misplaced Pages article, let alone an article subject to WP:BLP. Bottom line: delete the prison address, replace the booking photo, and let the facts of his convictions speak for themselves. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Well said, Dirtlawyer. I have nothing original to add except to agree with the proposed approach. TheBlueCanoe 15:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hugo Race

I am trying to correct the incorrect information and spelling in the Misplaced Pages post on myself - my edits are being blocked, Please advise, thank you. preceding unsigned comment made by HJ Race (talk)

Hello Hugo, it is not recommended for a person to edit his own BLP.
Can you point out the errors in the article so other editors can try to fix it? I noticed you tried to change the date of birth (1963 instead of 1961) and the name of a band Boom Boom Fix instead of Boom Boom Fit. Can you find any sources that can be referenced? I was not able to. Since in my opinion, your date of birth is probably not a controversial issue, in case you also can't find a reference, and there is no valid reference that cites the incorrect date of birth, you might self-publish the correct one on the bio section of your webpage, and then request for it to be corrected by other editors here or in my talk page--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COISELF Here is the policy that concerns you editing your own article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find any sources regarding his birthdate. Out of the two used in the article to support "early 1960s" one is a broken link and the second is just him saying he listened to music as a child in the 1960s and doesn't specify how old he was at the time. I suggest we remove references to his birthdate until a source is found. WP:BLP asks us to remove any unsourced information, even if it is mundane. I don't see "Boom Boom Fit" anywhere in the article, but I did see they tried to change "Dum Dum Fit" to "Dum Dum Fix". I'm not sure if they were trying to make fun of us (ie "fix it dum dum") as a quick Google search has plenty of hits for Dum Dum Fit and none for Fix. I see user:OrangeMike reverted this editors edits that were being made from a different username as spam, which suggests to me there was a more problematic series of edits in the past. CorporateM (Talk) 16:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not actually clear if this individual is the same as the person that got banned. The person that got banned only made one edit. If we can't validate the birthday your proposal that we remove the birthday would fix that issue.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Jaycee Dugard, Survior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved Cwobeel has removed the sentence with the problematic phrasing. LHM 22:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

In the entry describing Jaycee Dugard's kidnapping, Misplaced Pages allows the use of the phrase, "Garrido also told her that by engaging in sex acts with him, which he would videotape, she was protecting other girls whom he would not need to victimize." The legal and practical application of this terminology, especially without the proper grammar to specify a direct quote or source, gives 'weight' to the offender's assertion that his pedophilic urges somehow qualified as a "need". This is INACCURATE and also misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.103.222 (talk • contribs) 15:45, October 12, 2014‎

I have removed that sentence as it was unreferenced. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution