Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:55, 7 December 2014

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Navin Raheja

A user is trying to put some defamatory content in this article. The user has made first edit on 20 November and second edit on 24 November.

Please pay your attention towards this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskargupta269 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Leoaugust User: The content is not defamatory but factual. The person in question has had over 45 lawsuits filed against him and his company in July & August 2014, and all this is part of the persons profile. These cases area of serious nature, and just a mention has been made without reproduction of the charges. All citations are made and reliable sources provided, and the law is that what is true cannot be defamatory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoaugust (talk • contribs) 12:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• The article as a whole needs some serious cleaning. The lawsuits do need to be mentioned since they are prominent in the media, but the editor is writing about them in a somewhat sensationalistic manner. However at the same time, I do see where someone is trying to write about Raheja in as positive a light as possible. Either way of writing is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages and the article needs a complete re-write. I do have to warn you that if someone is known in relation to something negative, that must be covered if there is enough coverage of the event- which it does appear that there is, at least at first glance. We cannot remove or block this content from appearing on the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would like it if more editors can come in and help clean the article up and ensure that the article is neutral and does not sway in either direction. This looks like it's gearing up to become an edit war and I'd like to avoid taking this to any other boards (ANI, 3rd opinion, etc) if I can possibly help it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think this might actually need to get escalated to ANI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• I really, really need someone to keep an eye on the page. I feel like I'm the only person who is actively watching the page and doing anything other than Leoaugust and he's the one that the original editor came on here about. The issue here is that it looks extremely, extremely likely that Bhaskargupta269 is someone who has been paid to edit Misplaced Pages on behalf of the company. His edits have been extremely promotional in tone and he's also been extremely keen on removing any negative material that is on either the article for Navin Raheja or Raheja Developers. I've redirected the article for Raheja himself to the company since once we removed any of the negative information about him (as Bhaskargupta269 has argued that it is all about the company and not Raheja) then I noticed that there really wasn't anything to suggest that Raheja merited his own article. (Plus if we argue that the negative information about his company shouldn't be on there, it can also be argued that the positive stuff pertaining to his company should be removed as well since it is about the company.) This really needs more eyes on it- I've had a few people from WP:INDIA help out, but it can use more people helping out as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

List of beneficiaries of immigration/nationality-related United States Private Bills/Laws

Can we get some eyes on this? It's a list of non-notable, non-articled people completely referenced to primary government documents. Many of the child immigration cases are from the sixties and seventies but some are from 2000s, clearly about children, and who would still be children today. All of the cases involve subjects within the time limits of BLPs.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Horrid. Unless the person is notable, they have no business being listed in a Misplaced Pages article. Period. Collect (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Pruned of all non-notable persons AFAICT. Collect (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone re-added non-notable persons. Re-pruned. Collect (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The same person re-adding the non-notables has created a huge and redundant lede on List of stage names. More eyes would be appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed more eyes would be appreciated. @Edward321 continues to behave unilaterally, not even replying on the article talk page. The lede is sprawling but not redundant, and exists for a reason. I didn't create the article (list) but have contributed extensively. I could not start a WP:RFC regarding @Edward321 for lack of a third party (i.e. another editor) sharing my concerns, but I am happy to have more eyes on this issue. Quis separabit? 23:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Concern re sources

The vast preponderance of refs given are gpo.gov documents, and not to any secondary source at all. Is (typical example) a valid secondary source per WP:RS and WP:BLP? Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not a secondary source by any stretch of the imagination. Lankiveil 22:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC).

And there has to be a better title for the article, if it has to exist at all.--ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Birth dates

Admin Bbb23 kindly suggested this would be a good forum to discuss birth dates of notable subject's children when the subjects themselves release press releases and official statements. He said it was alright to link to the background discussion at User talk:Bbb23#Tom Hanks.

In a nutshell: WP:DOB says nothing to prohibit this generally basic piece of biographical information. Obviously, if the parents do not make an announcement, like Christian Bale, they want it private, and under WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP, we certainly would not cite anonymous, unattributed purported "sources" at People, etc.

In the cases of parents actively releasing birth announcements to the media, there is clearly no objection on their part; when they issue a press release or a publicist's statement themselves, it becomes public knowledge at their own insistence. I think anyone looking up Kim Kardashian's life, for instance, expects to know when North West was born. Does any of this need to be addressed in the policy? Does the policy need clarification, or does it say what it needs to?--Tenebrae (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why the exact birth date of a non-notable child of an article subject makes for good encyclopedic content or is a piece of information that helps the reader better understand the article subject. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely trivia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we still discussing this issue? It have been covered extensively already. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And no consensus appears to have been made, since WP:DOB doesn't mention a word. Let me add that I brought this here at an admin's suggestion, so clearly, it's perfectly valid to do so. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As is obvious from this noticeboard filing, Tenebrae is still discussing it and is asking for more discussion on it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about birth dates of notable people. We are discussing birth dates of the children of notable people. There is a huge difference. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And thanks for taking this back on-topic, HiLo48. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

First, on what basis does one say it's not pertinent information when professional journalists and academic biographers say it is, in fact, basic biographical data? Second, how is something pertinent possibly private when the subject announces it in a press release reaching millions of people? Finally, there's nothing prohibitive about it in the policy itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no evidence that you have understood my point. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely understood your opinion. I then asked two reasonable questions and made one observation. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to list the exact birth dates of the non-notable living children of Misplaced Pages article subjects; birth years should suffice. Moreover, there is no reason to include the names of non-notable children unless the names have been previously published in a reliable source. I recently encountered an IP user adding the names of the five children of a former Olympic medalist, completely without any reliable source, apparently solely based on the personal knowledge of the IP user. In such circumstances we should be careful to protect the privacy of the family and children -- especially when the parents have not been responsible for widely disseminating their children's names and other personal information. In the absence of reliable (i.e. published) sources of wide circulation, we should respect that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe I'm the one who started this whole thing by editing the Tom Hanks article to include the birthdates and locations of all of his children, not just his one "notable" child, Colin Hanks. I cited my source as The California Birth Index, 1905-1995, which is a public records database available through the State of California. In my opinion, it's about as reliable as you can get, and since the information is, indeed, public, I don't see a problem in using it as a source. My intentions were to add more complete information, as I tend to be a completest by nature. What I didn't expect was this long, involved debate over adding "trivial" information for what some of you are calling non-notable people. I truly apologize to people like Tenebrae for bringing so much negativity back upon you over an issue I never thought was that big of a deal. However, I now have to ask a simple question, focused on Hanks's son, Chet. This young man is also an actor, like his father. He hasn't amassed huge roles in movies or TV shows or any major awards, as yet, but who are we to say he's not notable in his own right? Okay, so he doesn't have his own Misplaced Pages article... but I'll bet he has fans that are interested in details like when his birthday is. If he doesn't have his own Misplaced Pages article, people will find him in the main body of Mr. Hanks's article, right? So, looking at it from that perspective, wouldn't you (a general "you" addressed to all) want to know such details and be grateful to see them included? For those who declared this matter trivial, forgive me for beating the dead horse, but I did a search of several "notable" high profile people (not just actors) and found that their articles mentioned their children, and in many cases also included more intimate (or minute) details, such as birthdates and locations, and that many different sources, including The California Birth Index, have been used as citations. I'm not trying to stir the pot, so to say, nor am I trying to start an argument with anyone. I just simply don't understand why someone with a completest mentality like myself can't add such a detail, as long as it has a reliable and verifiable source? If even one person reads the article and appreciates the inclusion of such information, then haven't we properly done our job? Or, to borrow from Mr. Spock from Star Trek, do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one? Frankly, I don't really expect an answer to this inquiry. I'm writing it in hopes that it might make some of the people who have been drawn into this debate rethink their stance. I'm considering the matter dealt with and closed, but I will continue to contribute such "trivial" details where I see them missing. However, I will generally steer clear of the articles related to the higher profile people and just leave those alone from now on. I've learned my lesson. I apologize for being so verbose, but I appreciate all of you for letting me put this out there and explain my own thoughts and ask questions on the subject. Peace. ShowMeTheMagic (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)ShowMeTheMagic

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. You would likely benefit from reading WP:NOT. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Any biographer of a noted individual, whether the subject is an actor, politician or head of GM, includes specifics and not vague details about major life events. The birth of a child is a major life event. Calling it "fan site" material demeans the work of professional journalists and authors, who have training and experience to know what's of pertinent biographical nature and what's "ooh, what's your favorite food?" I myself have deleted trivial content such as "He's a fan of the LA Dodgers."

I respectfully submit that instead of simply throwing around labels like "fan site" or "trivia", that those in this discussion offer thoughtful rationale, as I did in the first two sentences of this paragraph. And unless one writes biographies in a journalistic, authorial or academic context, perhaps one could research journalistic / authorial / academic standards and ethics before offering opinions devoid of fact and context. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

My comments were directed specifically to Magic in order to address his belief that Hanks' fans would want to see the birth dates of his children in the article. Obviously he has a wrong-headed notion about what Misplaced Pages is. Obviously you have a wrong-headed notion about who can and should comment here. I submit that if you come to a community noticeboard looking for comments from the community that you either should do so prepared to get opinions you don't like from editors you don't like or don't venture over to a noticeboard at all. Getting your panties in a wad over a request for comments you asked for is not helpful to anyone. Further, if you're looking for opinions from only those who meet your personal standards ("journalistic, authorial or academic context, perhaps one could research journalistic / authorial / academic standards and ethics") you aren't going to get what you want in any case. That's not how Misplaced Pages works, and you know it. These emotional demands and expectations are ridiculous. Not to mention uncivil. Please keep your personal attacks and feelings out of things. You're not doing yourself any favors and are starting to appear out of touch and unreasonable. An admin has already hatted an off-topic conversation in this request for comment -- a conversation that went off-topic because you took it there. How many times would you like that to happen before the whole thing gets shut down due to consensus already reached (not in your favor) and the fact that it's become a waste of the community's time due to your battleground mentality and defensive stance with lines you keep drawing in the sand? You asked for opinion, you're getting it. Be an adult and take it as it comes or don't come here at all, is my suggestion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The "California Birth Index" is a raw public records dump, not a reliable source. There's no sense the records have been verified for accuracy or that they match-up with a specific individual (multiple John Smiths, etc). We're discouraged from using primary sources without care per WP:BLPPRIMARY because of concerns like these. Raw government records are expressly covered by: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. This is policy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. My grandfather's date of birth and his mother's maiden name are both listed incorrectly in the BCI. No doubt there are many other records listed incorrectly, as well. Definitely not a reliable source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, the Birth Index is not an indicator that this information has any import. We are not here to recreate the Birth Index. If we cannot find this information being reported in locations that indicate that it's important, then there is no reason to assume that people's privacy should be trumped by the need for us to report it. The who-are-we-to-say-whether-Chet-is-notable argument is an easy one: we are the editors of Misplaced Pages, so yes, we decide what qualifies for this work. We have established (if sometimes loose) standards for notability, and they are constantly in use here. Merely being an actor does not hit our standards, this is not IMDb. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Simply a point of order: Once parents send out press releases to an audience of millions or pose their children on the covers of national/global magazines, privacy, by definition, is no longer at issue. I'm in complete agreement that If parents do not announce it and the only "sources" are anonymous and unattributed, then it doesn't matter how RS the publication is since anonymous, unattributed reports are simply rumor, and we don't report rumors.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. We could put the specific heights of the children as well, but, like birthdays, sources don't generally treat that as information that needs to be obsessively detailed in order to convey biographical context. If it's important to have hyper-detail to understand the biographical narrative, such as "His son was born on the day he was released from prison" then multiple reliable, non-tabloid sources will make it clear it's an important detail. If they don't, it isn't. The fact that Tom Hanks has kids is a significant biographical detail that has had an impact on his life. Whether one of those kids was born in late or early May has had trivial and negligible impact. (Maybe their hair color is as significant to his biography?) __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree: verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The discussion is over privacy, which is removed as an issue when the subject puts out press releases to an audience of millions. And as mentioned, a child's birth is a major life event and normally included in any biographical book, for instance. Hair color generally is not.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I agree with most if not all of what you have said above, but I still fall on the side of caution rather than bold inclusion when it comes to facts about the non-notable children (and other non-notable living relatives), and especially minor children, of article subjects. The California birth index is a primary source, not a secondary source we would normally accept as a "reliable source" per WP:RS. I have from time to time accepted facts sourced to birth records, Social Security death records, military service records, etc., that are now often available online for dead persons through Ancestry.com and similar online genealogy services, but I would not employ them for living persons because of privacy concerns, nor would I treat them as independent published sources for purposes of establishing notability. Your question involving a press release regarding the birth of an article subject's child is a much more interesting case. While I would hesitate to treat a press release as a reliable source, it does signal that the parents' primary concerns are not the privacy of their children. Here are two key analytical questions: How do you know about the press release? Did any reliable sources publish the contents of the press release? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dirtlawyer1, and thank you for your polite and temperate comments. I actually haven't said anything to advocate the California Birth Index, and in fact, if it's genuinely not a reliable source, I'd urge editors to remove it from the Kardashian articles, for instance.

The press releases are generally given by the subjects' publicists to the media, often in the form of a short statement confirming name, date, and place. Countless sources, including the Associated Press and periodicals from Time to the LA Times run this information. For example, Scott Foley's publicist recently released: this: "'Scandal star Scott Foley and his wife, actress Marika Dominczyk, welcomed a baby boy, Konrad Foley, on November 13th. He joins big sister Malina, brother Keller and their dog Frankie. The Foley family is overjoyed." This reached literally tens of millions of readers. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, if the substance of a press release has been published (even if it is published verbatim) in the news sections (i.e. it is not a paid announcement/advertisement) of a major publication, or picked up by AP or another wire service, it's not really a "press release" anymore. If a major newspaper or wire service has published it as their own content, I would treat it as a reliable source. There are, however, online sites that memorialize press releases without any editorial control of the content; they simply post press releases verbatim, sometimes as PDF images of the original releases. I would be far more cautious about using those as sources, and may or may not use them depending on the circumstances. Also, please keep in mind that press releases are not independent sources, and even if you use them to substantiate a particular fact in an article, you may not use them to substantiate the notability of the subject per WP:GNG.

In any event, I don't think Misplaced Pages editors have any business going through online birth records for personal information about living persons (and especially children), as I believe that raises serious original research issues per WP:OR. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, and I thank you for noting what I should have, that I was speaking about editorial RSs that run the contents of a press release, as opposed to a site that runs press releases (where these sorts of releases never appear, anyway.) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A person can be the subject of a single press release and still be covered by WP:NPF. Your Kim Kardashian example isn't very helpful, as few children in the world are ever going to get that level of coverage, and even then not usually among high-quality secondary sources. "Kim Kardashianizing" the level of detail for children who had a birth announcement in the local paper would not be showing the proper amount of caution toward people basically unknown except for maybe having a famous parent. Multiple higher-quality sources that treat the material in a non-tabloid way will always be needed, or we're replicating tabloid journalism.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

But your press release example that provides information about "their dog Frankie" is helpful as an example. The fact that it "reached literally tens of millions of readers" is not an argument that it's proven to be significant biographical material required in article-space. This kind of thing is seen by millions, but that doesn't make it less trivial for the purposes of making an encyclopedia article. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

With all respect: Apples and oranges. The Daily Mail is a tabloid, and I've never once advocated using tabloid content. The Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times, to name jut two outlets, are reputable news organizations with high standards, ethics and, equally importantly, news judgments. We're also not really not talking about a birth announcement in a local paper, but about public figures issuing press releases. I'm completely with you on the "dog Frankie" bit — the AP certainly didn't cover that!   : )  As any biographer will tell you, the birth of a child is one of the most major life events. Getting a dog really isn't comparable. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A child is significant, a wedding is significant, listing off the detailed individual birthday dates of celebrities' (otherwise non-notable) children is often trivial. Dates of birth are obviously significant to the subject but not every birthday is worth including. Not everything AP covers should be considered lasting or immediately worthy of encyclopedic notice. We try to have better standards than "seen by millions" once. "Press release published" usually isn't enough. The majority of items that receive fleeting one-off coverage on the wire services are never going to get repeated on Misplaced Pages. That's not a bad thing. The Los Angeles Times is considered a generally reliable source, and it's because they make sure to explicitly label this type of material celebrity news/gossip, explicitly sourced from US Weekly. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Side note: In this case, LA Times was attributing what it considers a reliable source. Other times the Times, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and many other trusted publications report births, deaths and weddings on their own. If desired I could find examples, though I think it's not unreasonable to stipulate that these publications all do original biographical reporting as well. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it sounds as if we're approaching a middle ground. I can't imagine anyone here saying, for instance, that we should not include the birth dates of President and Michelle Obama's daughters, even though as minor children they're no different from any other celebrity children whose births the parents themselves announce and consciously make public. They may turn out to be astronauts someday or simply non-notable housewives, just like anyone. But to say it's not biographically appropriate to note their birth dates — no responsible presidential biographer would say that.

So unless we're saying we should censor those birth dates, there's agreement that some celebrities' otherwise non-notable children fall under the normal standards of biography — the standard seen in countless thousands of books, from Robert Caro's Lyndon Johnson epic to simpler bios of pop entertainers. So in order not to be arbitrary, I'm don't think there's be objection to defining objective criteria, since without objective criteria the only argument is WP:DONTLIKE (the examples of which there even include a term used here, "trivia"). The one obvious objective criterion, and there may be others, is the parents' own demonstrated wish to acknowledge births; there is no expectation of privacy when one sends a press release to the national/global media. What other objective, rather than subjective, criteria would be helpful? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• "it sounds as if we're approaching a middle ground" Not in reality "we're" not. Consensus is for keeping the dates out. How is that "middle-ground"?
• "I can't imagine anyone here saying, for instance, that we should not include the birth dates of President and Michelle Obama's daughters" I will say it (and others have already said it without naming specific people): Specific birth dates of children of article subjects have no encyclopedic value. It doesn't matter who the individuals are, it's content published in newspapers and gossip rags, not necessary content for an encyclopedia article.
• "no responsible presidential biographer would say that" Uncivil, unnecessary comment that draws a conclusion about the worthiness of Misplaced Pages editors who don't agree with you. There have been several good editors here (including myself) who have told you that specific birth dates of anyone other than the article subject don't belong.
• "So unless we're saying we should censor those birth dates, there's agreement that some celebrities' otherwise non-notable children fall under the normal standards of biography" If what you're trying to say is everyone is in agreement with you, the answer is "No". The consensus so far is to keep the dates out. You have found an editor who sort of agrees with you and that makes for a consensus?
• "without objective criteria the only argument is WP:DONTLIKE (the examples of which there even include a term used here, "trivia")" I see WP:DONTLIKE occurring here, but it's not from the editors who disagree with you, it's from you. You don't like what they've said, so you have come up with reasons to dismiss their views and insult them. What they've told you is that birth dates of article subjects are trivial information and isn't encyclopedic and is not pertinent to the article subject and doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject. All very good reasons to keep such content out.
• "What other objective, rather than subjective, criteria would be helpful?" That's already been answered for you by several editors.

It appears to me that you are trying to ham-hand your request for comment into a result that will please you, rather than taking all the comments and seeing what the consensus really is. You asked a question, you got answers, you didn't like the majority of the answers so you dismissed them. Even the admin who suggested you come here says the consensus isn't going your way (on another's talk page). The consensus is: keep specific birth dates out. Yes, I think that pretty well sums it up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, if the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. I still don't know what's confusing about this. It seems dead simple to me. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your entire premise is flawed. Responsible biography includes children's birth dates when that is non-private, public information. If you don't believe me, look at the thousand and thousands of books by professional authors and academic biographers. An analogy: Unless one is an environmental scientist, one has no factual basis for saying what that fields' scientific standards are. Otherwise, it's just inexpert opinion. We're all entitled to opinions. I like to think we made decisions based on informed opinions.

"It's trivia" is, in fact, an example of WP:DONTLIKE, and one editor used it here. Conversely, I've given well-supported examples for what I say, including the examples of thousands and thousands of serious book biographies. So saying that I'm the one indulging in WP:DONTLIKE is a falsehood and another example of smokescreening.

There is no consensus to change WP:DOB. Editors of good faith are working on a consensus to clarify one thing that WP:DOB does not address one way or the other. __ E L A Q U E A T E, Dirtlawyer1 and others are trying to reach consensus, rather than issuing pronouncements based on nothing but personal feeling.

No objective criteria has been offered other than the one i suggested. I'm not sure why you believe that having no objective criteria is useful or workable. Saying we should remove President and Michelle Obama's daughters birth dates for no objective reason is what's insulting. If you really believe that, it would be hypocritical for you not to go remove them from the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your entire premise is flawed. This is just blanket argumentative. It's absurd to imply that Misplaced Pages editors are somehow disqualified from making judgments about articles if they haven't published academic biographies. If you have a specific proposal, give it, and please give some basic respect to other editors even if they disagree. You seem to be running around a tree at this point, asserting how verifiable certain information about children is, without dealing with editors who want to follow BLP and err on the side of caution when it comes to those non-notable kids. (And your multiple references to WP:DONTLIKE aren't helpful here; this isn't an article deletion discussion. Weighing whether something's trivia makes for a weak argument in an article deletion discussion, but it's a fundamentally necessary thing to do when building articles. People are following and citing a specific policy, BLP, and their arguments follow some common agreement about how we deal with coverage of non-notable people.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

BLP, and specifically WP:DOB, doesn't address this one way or the other, so nothing is actually being cited. What I thought we're trying to do is to address the fact that DOB is silent on this by devising with objective criteria. I'm really not sure how "let's devise objective criteria" can possibly be controversial.

I've indeed suggested that one objective criterion is when parents issue press releases to the media ballyhooing their children. And I asked if others here had other objective criteria. So far, its all been subjective: "I don't think it's important." "I think it's trivia." That's not objective criteria.

I've never said we personally have to publish biographies, though I've done so myself. What I've said is that it's irresponsible to pretend that there is not an entire academic and professional field of biography, filled with authoritative experts, that has well-established ethical and research standards. Saying that such objective standards don't matter and that that our personal, subjective opinion trumps all is perplexing. Again, how is "let's devise objective criteria" possibly controversial?--Tenebrae (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae and WV, y'all need to dial it down a notch. There is room for reasonable middle ground here, and, yes, perhaps it would be wise to adopt a clarifying amendment to WP:DOB at some point. That having been said, here are my preferred positions on birth dates of family members:

1. Article subject's birth date: Default to including the exact birth date, keeping in mind that WP policy is to include only the birth year if a living article subject requests it.

2. Children's birth dates: Include the birth year only, and only include that if the birth year or exact birth date has been widely disseminated in mainstream publications. There is no need to include the exact birth date, and even celebrity parents who have dropped press releases with exact dates may later come to regret it when weirdos send their children messages on their birthdays, or when paparazzi stalk the children for photos on their birthdays. Frankly, I think this same guideline should equally apply to the Obama daughters or some obscure, but notable scientist's children: default to birth year only. As for what professional biographers would include in a 250 to 500-page book, let's keep in mind that we are an encyclopedia, not a single-subject, stand-alone biography; by necessity, we must pick and choose what facts and details are most important in a well-written, but obviously condensed 10,000 to 50,000-byte biographical article in order to produce a representative summary of an article subject's life.

3. Spouse's birth dates: Same treatment for the subject's spouse as for the subject's children.

4. Other family member's birth dates: Ditto.

5. Wedding anniversaries: The wedding year should be adequate in most instances.

There may be exceptions where the exact date takes on some greater significance in the context of the article subject's life, and then we can discuss such exceptions on a case-by-case basis. I also want to reiterate this thought: there is also usually no reason to include the children's full legal names, either, and I would strongly discourage other editors from doing so in most instances. First name or commonly used nickname is adequate, and even then I would only use the children's names if they have been widely disseminated in mainstream publications. Names and birth dates of living relatives should never be sourced to the first-hand knowledge of editors and/or government birth records; these circumstances raise serious privacy issues.

These are my thoughts on point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a good-faith effort to reach compromise and common ground.

My immediate reaction is that 1, 3 and 4 are all sensible: Years only for non-notable spouse and other non-notable family members — and most of these probably won't even be available outside OR public-records search anyway — and the subject's year only as per policy if the subject requests.

With 2, the years would have to be cited, obviously, and the cites themselves would contain birth dates, so we're essentially making people link to an outside source that has this information. If the information is that readily available, I'm not sure why we want to force inconvenience people to do a two-step process. But this is a discussion, so it's good to talk about these things. (And again, unless the parents / representatives themselves confirm, giving specific dates is inadvisable on privacy grounds, which aren't at issue in the case of press releases/statements.)

With 5, I dunno. With adults announcing their marriage date, we're talking two grown people who've made a pretty non-controversial and extremely common choice to say, we married on such-and-such a date.

So, three points of complete agreement, and two points for continued discussion. This is how Misplaced Pages at its best works. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm with @Dirtlaywer: on all of it to be honest. I would say that IMHO it will usually take less extraordinary circumstances for an anniversay date to be worth including than a birth date but that's something that consensus will agree over time. IP REDCATED (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC) <-- Previous comment by SPACKlick (talk))

No, Tenebrae, no one is being "forced" to do anything. We're just choosing not to be the conveyance for the information. Whether they wish to go find the information we're not providing elsewhere is up to them. Now you've come here, you've sought input, and you've gotten clear consensus against your stance, some grounded in DOB guidelines that suggest that we should forego birthdates on even borderline notable subjects due to privacy concern, so it seems mere pedantry to suggest that at least that level of privacy should not apply to non-notable non-subjects. I recommend you listen to that consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus? @Dirtlaywer1: posted his proposal only an hour ago. And only two people besides me have responded: You and an anon IP. What is the rush, especially now that marriage dates have been brought in? And you're mixing apples and oranges: When the proud parents themselves send out press releases to let tens of millions of people know of their child's birth, privacy by definition is no longer an issue in those specific cases. Incidentally, "consensus" is not a matter of voting; it's a matter of all parties trying to reach a compromise all can live with. (BTW, the WP:DOB guidelines don't require or prohibit anything we're talking about. Please read that link.)--Tenebrae (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right about a word I choose; I've struck it and substituted a more accurate word.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a mistaken notion that I am against the use of birth years. I'm not. As far as me dialing down...I'm not the one who's making ridiculous demands, drawing lines in the sand, refusing to accept obvious consensus, and bringing up old bullshit from the past that has nothing to do with this thread. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? It seems like you're doing such rehashing right now. You're cursing again, and you're mischaracterizing again ... and I wasn't even the one who said anything; another editor was!

No one else here is cursing or losing their temper. And "lines in the sand"? Wow. I've laid no conditions of any kind whatsoever. Indeed, most of the other editors here are being perfectly collegial and cordial — politely disagreeing and working toward a common middle ground. In my personal experience of nearly 10 years here, nine times out of ten a workable compromise is reached without anger or cursing. Which is what most of us are doing here now.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"No one else here is cursing or losing their temper." I used the word 'bullshit' (not a big deal) and I haven't lost my temper once. If the use of blunt language some consider cursing is offensive to you, then you really shouldn't be on the internet. Or you need to get a thicker skin and learn to stop judging others for how they communicate. "I've laid no conditions of any kind whatsoever." That's a lie. I'm not the only one who's pointed out your ridiculous conditions for who can and can't edit BLPs and comment here as well as your belief that those who don't speak a certain way or have specific credentials and qualifications are disqualified from commenting in this thread. I'm collegial, just not your approved version of collegial. Get over it. You're not superior or special because you've been here nearly 10 years and are quoting a statistic that's unmeasurable. People you don't like or rub you the wrong way are going to comment on your requests for comment and are going to tell you you're wrong regarding policy (just as Bbb did today elsewhere) and disagree with you. That's life, dude. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC

):::::::Yes, consensus. Many people have posted since you started this thread trying to hear an okay on running full birthdates of children of notable people, and they have repeatedly and consistently said no. No, consensus is not a system trying to reward the most obstinate individual in the discussion whether or not their concerns have any legitimacy. Yes, I've read WP:DOB, including the part where it says "If the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Really, it is in there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That quote refers to subjects who are "borderline notable." We're talking about non-notable children, not "borderline-notable" subjects themselves. And what the policy states is without giving such an exception is: "Misplaced Pages includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources."

And Dirtlawyer1 is making a good-faith effort to seek consensus, so perhaps it would be proper to work with his attempts at compromise and not say, "My way or the highway." I've certainly been moving from my original stance toward Dirtlawyer1's ideas, and with more calm and civilized give and take, perhaps sensible middle ground and not something extremist will evolve.

In a response to Winkelvi, cursing at someone is not collegial. It's verbal abuse, and verbal abuse is neither collegial nor civilized. It's a self-indulgent attempt to intimidate and harass another user. Saying "get over it" is like telling women who get catcalls on the street to "get over it." I'll say again: Do not curse at me. You do not have a right to curse at another user. It's a form of harassment. And please don't tell me about Web etiquette: I've been a Web professional since the mid-1990s. The only people are curse are trolls. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You think WP:DOB implies we should give less protection to non-notable people than we currently give to borderline notable people? That's a novel way to interpret WP:BLP. I haven't seen a single editor other than yourself who thinks we should list the exact birth dates of non-notable living children of Misplaced Pages article subjects. Birth years are enough.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Did I curse at you? No. I used the word 'bullshit' in response to someone else. Get over it. Move on. Or leave the Internet (which is full of cursing). Stop making everything about you and stop making pronouncements about others based on your own personal standards. Misplaced Pages is not censored and cursing is allowed. Your obsession with me and my presence is the real incivility here. In fact, I'm starting to hear faintly in the distance echoes of "Net negative". Chew on that for a while. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not novel to professional journalists, biographers and academic researchers. The birth of a child is a major life event for the subject — it's tangential in terms of the child. And it is absolutely one of the most important dates in the subject's life. This is a non-controversial standard for biographies and autobiographies from mainstream to academic press. When privacy isn't an issue, as in the cases of parents announcing it to tens of millions of people, I'm not sure the reason for defying norms of conventional biographical-author behavior. The only reason I'm hearing is variations of, "I don't want to." That's not a reason. At least I'm giving a reason: That it's part of standard, mainstream biography. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop with the mantra re: professional journalists, biographers, and academic researchers. Misplaced Pages is a community of volunteers and regular folks who do what they can, not professional blah-blah-blahs. That's why Misplaced Pages has its own set of rules. The birth of a child and the exact date of that birth is important to the family of the child, not readers of an online encyclopedia. Unless you're a "fan". Which brings us full circle back to "Misplaced Pages is not a fan site". Question: How long are you going to continue to beat this dead horse, Tenebrae? Because, so far, the only person in favor of what you want is you. Consensus is clearly for what policy already says: birth year, not complete birth date. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Granted I'm new to this conversation but I get the gist of the it and pardon me for not reading the entire subsection, there's a lot and I see a lot of bickering but here is my two cents, I think where the kid was born (city, hospital, etc) and full birth dates aren't necessary because as Winkelvi said, this isn't a fan site, we don't need those kinds of details. But I think just the name and a birth year should suffice because that to me is an encyclopedic information in terms of talking about someones family and if they had children. Granted, names and birth year need to be reliably sourced but I don't see how that is an invasion of privacy. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

To answer WV, policy does NOT already say: "birth year, not complete birth date." Read WP:DOB. And re: "Misplaced Pages is a community of volunteers and regular folks who do what they can, not professional blah-blah-blahs." I sense some anti-intellectual bias here. When an academic field exists with certain basic standards of information and ethics, why is your argument,"Well, we're just regular people, not high-falutin' authors and social scientists. Yeah, they may have their fancy ways of providing pertinent, non-private information based on hundreds of years of developing the form, but we don't hold truck with the book-learnin' types. We's happy doin' things are own way, even if they ain't the best way."

Ask yourself this: For anyone who's not a professional biographer, why do you think you're better and more knowledgable than a professional biographer? What gives you the foundation to say, Well, it's not my field, but I know better than the professionals do? Seriously: I'd like to answer to why you feel that way. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You know what biographers are discouraged from doing? Making up sentences with misspellings like We's happy doin' things are own way, even if they ain't the best way. in order to ridicule people with words they didn't say. (It's hard to take anyone seriously as some kind of spokesperson for journalistic ethics if they think that kind of approach is appropriate.) WP:DOB clearly says if the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. That's "person", not "article subject", as BLP covers all living people mentioned. I note it was misrepresented earlier as only applying to the subject of the article. I think children of celebrities are people too. I haven't seen any other editors disagreeing about how much detail to provide about them, beside yourself. And I don't think you're going to convince people by straight-up ridicule, either. This also isn't a great place to question the whole idea of Misplaced Pages editors deciding Misplaced Pages content either. That's far out-of-scope of this noticeboard. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100%, Elaqueate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I was afraid the satire of "are / our" and the like was too subtle. If you've been reading my posts here, you know perfectly well I know how to spell. Re-read that sentence and ask yourself if those deliberate misspellings within quote marks weren't a making a point about a familiar pattern among many "just plain folks" Internet commenters. Perhaps satire wasn't the best response, but consider that to which I was responding: someone saying we should have sloppy standards because "Misplaced Pages is a community of volunteers and regular folks who do what they can, not professional blah-blah-blahs." Really: "professional blah-blah-blahs." In what world is it a bad thing for an encyclopedia to have professional writer-editors volunteer their time?

And the WP:DOB passage refers to the subject: I find it remarkable that you would leave out the object of the sentence. "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Anyone who has ever diagrammed a sentence in eighth grade knows very well that this sentence refers to "the subject" and that the object of "the person" is "the subject." I'm dismayed we have to go to this level of pedantry in order to objectively read a sentence's meaning.

RE "I haven't seen any other editors disagreeing about how much detail to provide about them": I can't do this, because I'd be accused of disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. But if you want to hear other editors defending biographical integrity, go to Barack Obama and remove the birth dates of his non-notable (non-bluelinked) daughters. See if that doesn't get reverted, and if removed again, see if that doesn't raise a discussion there about the biographical appropriateness of those dates. There is no objective reason to include those dates and names and not those of Jimmy Fallon's children, which Fallon's representative made perfectly public. It is hardly unreasonable to ask that we have objective standards rather than to be purely subjective. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:DOB refers to more than just the subject of an article. BLP applies to every living person who is the subject of any article material, any sentence, on Misplaced Pages (Your pedantry is off as well; take an analogous sentence "If the supervisor complains, or if the customer objects....") As for your "satire", it obviously wasn't your own ability to spell that was the subject, but your opinion of other editors, expressed in an inappropriate way. You're making fun of other editors by likening them to people who can't spell correctly. That's not "making a point", it's an unfair rhetorical device. I don't think Jimmy Fallon's children are public figures in any way that requires us to treat them less than we treat borderline-notable people. But this is going around in circles to no purpose. You need more editors than yourself who want to document non-notable children's information to the degree you're proposing. I haven't seen editors agree with you on this point, so I am failing to see the point of this thread.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a factual point re: grammar, which is something I'm involved with for a living: Unless a customer was mentioned specifically earlier, you don't use the definite article ("the") but the indefinite article ("a"). So in a paragraph about a supervisor, unless a customer was mentioned earlier than this sentence, it's ungrammatical to say, "If the supervisor complains, or if the customer objects...." It would have to be "If the supervisor complains, or if a customer objects...." Otherwise you're introducing some customer from out of nowhere. I'm sorry I'm being put in a position to go all Scalia on his, but I think we can all agree we should not make decisions based on an ungrammatical reading of a text. Does anyone really think we should? Seriously, I'm asking. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I wish now I had never edited the Tom Hanks article to include full birthdates of his children, thus opening this can of worms. However, I also think I can close the matter simply and succinctly. I read a random sampling of Misplaced Pages articles on people I believe to be just as notable as Mr. Hanks, including Tom Cruise, Matthew McConaughey, Bill Gates, Meg Whitman and quite a few others. In 95% of the articles, children's birthdates are referenced as "(b. year)." The other 5% included the month. None included a specific day. Had I done such a search BEFORE I tampered with the Hanks article, and had I read the abundance of WP articles that have been cited throughout this discussion, I would have left things alone, and this whole discussion would probably never have happened. I humbly apologize for being the cause of so much time consumption on the parts of everyone who has been involved. In the future, I will be more careful and watchful of my edits and revisions. There is one thing I would like to say, as I feel it needs to be said, and that is I think Winkelvi is wrong to verbally attack people for expressing their thoughts and for asking questions. His replies to people are often caustic, sarcastic, uncalled for and just plain unprofessional... and I realize that my comments now will probably draw his wrath and ire directed at me. I just don't think that level of tactlessness that he has displayed throughout this thread should be tolerated. I also can't sit still and not say something about it, either. Thank you all for an enlightening experience. I have learned a great deal (both good and bad) about Misplaced Pages from this matter, and what I've learned has been taken to heart. ShowMeTheMagic (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)ShowMeTheMagic

First, my thanks to you for your measured response advocating civility. Your surveying was a good idea. Sampling is always an issue, though: I've just looked at six TV stars and five had children's birth dates.

This speaks to my main point: a lack of objective criteria. We have the birth date for Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's child. Why? Because they made it public through a press release. You might say, "Oh, well, that Kimye." But that's no answer to what makes them different from Tom Cruise. They're certainly not more famous than Tom Cruise. So why aren't we addressing this elephant in the room — this lack of objective criteria. How are no standards better than clear, objective standards? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that Winkelvi is still banging these drums and wasting more time again on this. WP:DROPTHESTICK already. - Cwobeel (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What "drum" would that be? The one that practically everyone else who's commented here is "banging"? Yes, it's terrible to belong to a majority that sees WP:DOB for what it really is. And for the record, the only individual who has wasted the community's time over this issue is the individual who started this discussion thread and refuses to recognize consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

With all respect to Elaqueate — who did not answer my Sasha and Malia Obama question — the very sentence he quoted at WP:DOB refers to the article subject, not any person. That's not my opinion: That's grammatical structure. If WP:DOB was meant to ay "any person", it would have said "any person." Does anyone have a reasoned counterpoint to that, other than, "Well, I say the heck with grammar, it means what I say it means."

That passage does say that if the subject's birthdate is reported in reliable sources, we run it. And with children, the subject has all legal rights, so if the subject himself is releasing the birth date in a press release going out to millions of people, the subject not only doesn't mind the information being public, he wants that information public.

And to my biggest point: We need objective criteria. Why are Sasha and Malia Obama's birth dates given? Why is that of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's child? Can anyone give a reasonable response? Or is it it just, "Well, I feel like putting it in because, well, it feels right." In which case, what makes any one editor's "because it feels right" different from anyone else's? Would someone make a reasonable argument for why objective criteria is a bad idea? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is tedious at this point. I could forgive you being this pedantic and bludgeoning if you weren't misreading WP:BLP in a potentially dangerous way. WP:DOB does not only cover subjects who are named in the article title, but subjects of any material on Misplaced Pages. This is basic. BLP applies to any living person who is the subject of material presented in any article, anywhere, and there aren't two standards, one for people with article titles and one for people without. You are repeatedly misreading the word "subject" to only mean "article title subject only", and not "subject of material in an article".

As for the Obamas, there's probably a consensus on that page that they are beyond "borderline-notable" on their own merits, as they've had in-depth, non-passing, non-trivial, non-one-off-birth-announcement coverage in multiple non-tabloid sources. Applying that result to all other non-notable children with a single birth announcement is clearly not supported by other editors, policy, or practice. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Heartily so. Could someone please close this out? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

To __ E L A Q U E A T E: I'm reading it grammatically for what the passage literally says. How is it unreasonable to ask where in BLP it says it "applies to any living person who is the subject of material presented in any article, anywhere."

Second, and I'm sorry to be blunt, but you are deliberately misrepresenting facts when you suggest that sources such as the AP and Entertainment Weekly are "tabloid." That is purely and factually untrue. Could you address that point, please?

BLP allows the subject to make the call about birth date. And some subjects, who have all legal rights over their children, release this information out to the media in press releases. Some even put their children on non-tabloid magazine covers and talk about it, unless you consider Vanity Fair and other such magazines to be tabloid.

You're arguing for a subjective lack of standards, rather than an objective standard. Why? What is wrong with objective criteria? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You're re-hashing too much. But because I was pinged, and because you've apparently started edit-warring BLP-material in actual articles (!), I'll respond to a couple of things as briefly as I can here. 1. Consensus is not a "subjective lack of standards"; it's fundamental to Misplaced Pages editing. 2. BLP is about all living people mentioned in an article. The policy that "living subjects" are not just subjects named in a specific article title, but are any people who are the subject of any material found on Misplaced Pages, is central to WP:BLP and is a principle that has been explicitly upheld in multiple arbitration decisions. "Subject" is not "merely the subject of the entry" but the subject of any reference. There's not a second, more protective standard for people with their name on the article, than for other people mentioned. If you can't recognize this point, you're missing something fundamental about WP:BLP. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If I "rehash" it's because you're avoiding answering most of my questions. WP:DOB doesn't say what you want it to say, so you claim, "Well, everybody knows what it means between-the-lines." OK: If things have been "explicitly upheld," then why isn't that reflected at WP:DOB? A few words there would clarify everything. Unless it hasn't been upheld. So my question: If what you're saying is true and not your interpretation, why doesn't WP:DOB "explicitly" (to use your word) say that?

Do you consider AP or Entertainment Weekly tabloids? You said celebrities' children's birth dates only appear in tabloids. Why is it an unreasonable to ask you to clarify that claim? Because — and I'm not being impolite to ask, since it's a question that follows logically — if one claim you make is false, what does that say about other claims?

Parents are the ones who have rights over children. If they are releasing the information via press release to tens of millions of readers, are you saying it is not their intent to make this important date in their lives known?

I'm not even going to ask about why amateurs with no expertise in biographical research believe they know better than professionals. But if science amateur Sen. Ted Cruz, who denies climate change despite professional scientists telling him otherwise, can head a science subcommittee, I shouldn't be surprised to see this happening here. --Tenebrae (talk)

An aside to Winkelvi: Stop threatening me, a you just did in an edit summary. As another editor rightly mentioned, your basic mode is to attack other editors and to behave angrily and uncivilly, which I personally know includes hurling foul-mouthed obscenities and then misinterpreting a Misplaced Pages guideline ("Misplaced Pages is not censored") that applies to verbatim quotes in articles and using it as an excuse to say, "I'll curse anybody I want to at any time, and if you don't like it, leave Misplaced Pages." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat: The birth of a child and the exact date of that birth is important to the family of the child, not readers of an online encyclopedia. Unless you're a "fan". Which brings us full circle back to "Misplaced Pages is not a fan site".

This discussion is going nowhere. Consensus has been reached. Could an uninvolved administrator please close this out. We're just doing pete-and-repeat now with IDHT becoming the predominant theme with the person who opened this thread. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus isn't reached when there are still open questions. I've asked ] three reasonable questions. Just because you don't like the questions doesn't give your the right to say he's not allowed to answer them. He can speak for himself. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahmed Patel

Ahmed Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Siddddddh (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking for the page to be protected, you want Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection - though given that there is nothing in the article history to suggest any recent problematic editing at all, I don't think it will be granted. Are you sure you have the right article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you request it?It says to place a level 4 header on the top of the protection list. How do I find this list? Yes it is this article some days back somone tried to put wrong facts.This person is a prominent political personality. Siddddddh (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A single edit is not a 'High level of IP vandalism'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

'Thats why i have asked for temporary protection'. Siddddddh — Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to read the Misplaced Pages:Protection policy - we require strong grounds to protect articles, and isolated problematic edits are unlikely to be sufficient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

'Did go through it, for semi protection the policy says people who have recent high level of media interest. And this person does qualify this.'. Siddddddh — Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The decision isn't mine to make - but I doubt that your request will be complied with as you haven't demonstrated that there is currently a significant problem, and we don't pre-emptively protect articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

'Thanks its not premptive, but if you go through twitter and facebook this individual has been facing a lot of abuse and vandalism. And hence this request, hope it is accepted '. Siddddddh — Preceding undated comment added 09:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I declined it, and this topic, which never belonged here in the first place, is closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about content and source in a BLP article on Ariel Fernandez

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Background:

• There is a blog called Retraction Watch (authored by an experienced editor of scientific journals and an experienced science journalist. In my view it is well-established and has become an important part of the ecosystem of scientific publishing. I searched WP:RSN archives and didn't find any discussion of this source.
• Ariel Fernandez is a scientist - his job is to do research and publish it.
• The article about Fernandez has the following recently-added content:

Three of Fernandez's scientific papers have been questioned by journals that accepted them: BMC Genomics, Nature Publishing Group, and Annual Reviews. Fernandez threatened to sue Retraction Watch for its reporting on the expression of concern by BMC Genomics.

1. Kowalczuk MK et al. Expression of concern: subfunctionalization reduces the fitness cost of gene duplication in humans by buffering dosage imbalances BMC Genomics 2013, 14:260 Published: 17 April 2013
2. Editorial Expression of Concern: Non-adaptive origins of interactome complexity
3. Annual Review Of Genetics - Article Status
4. Peter Lipson for Forbes. 23 April, 2013 Scientists Should Embrace Criticism
5. Retraction Watch threatened with legal action…again
6. Popehat report

(note - added Forbes source for litigation threats Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

• Ariel Fernandez emailed me (he is site-banned for socking) and questioned whether Retraction Watch is a BLP-RS for the content about his threat to sue them. (Note - Fernandez has a long history of socking and can get quite intense about descriptions of himself on WP so there may be some sock-responses and drama :(... I hope not but we will see)

So - based on Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources, is the last sentence and its sourcing OK or not? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you have started a separate thread, rather than adding your comments to the existing thread above? If not, please combine the two threads, so other BLP/N participants may have the benefit of both series of comments and perspectives. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

yes, i was not aware of it. i just removed it, as that was one of Fernandez's socks. Thanks for pointing it out.Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The removed section contained the following comment from Cwobeel: I have removed that material. If it is to be re-added it needs to be better presented using the available sources. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I am Ariel Fernandez. To avoid misunderstanding let me state that several computers in the same workplace in Argentina may share the same IP. The article "Ariel Fernandez" where I am the subject appears to be in violation of the BLP policy at Misplaced Pages. It mentions a legal threat to the self-published blog Retraction Watch (RW). First, I never legally threatened RW, that information is false. The threat may have originated from someone faking my identity. Furthermore, the sources for this information are the self published blogs RW and Popehat. This appears to violate the following sections of the BLP policy: 1) Avoid self-published sources Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources. See below for our policy on self-published images.

2) Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them with {{db-attack}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.

190.224.156.37 (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez (striking comment by sock of banned user. see Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Note: this section merged with the previous one, since they're on the exact same subject. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks Richard I went out to grab lunch and thought about this and was going to do as you did when I got back. Thanks for fixing that. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that the info needs to be removed for now. There are no secondary RS reporting on this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) Retraction Watch appears to be to be a reliable source for statements about retractions of peer-review articles and associated academic kerfluffles. Experienced academics citing and quoting extensively from the sources they rely upon, with a 4-year track history of getting things right most of the time, issuing corrections when they're wrong and giving their oponents the right of reply in which to hang themselves. The materials in question appear to be being reliably reported on. I fully support the above recently added content, including the reporting on the threat to sue. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: Retraction Watch is somewhat reliable (it's really an SPS...) about article retractions, but as they are the subject of an alleged lawsuit, we cannot use them as a source about the lawsuit except as WP:SPSSELF. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, i found another source: Peter Lipson for Forbes. 23 April, 2013 Scientists Should Embrace Criticism. And EvergreenFir based on your comments it seems you had no familiarity with RW prior to this. Correct? They are highly respected and they have supplied an absolutely essential new journalism, especially for the life sciences. Nobody was reporting on retractions and the like before them. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I am familiar with RW and follow them on Facebook. They are still WP:SPS, regardless of how much I like them. Now Forbes is a strong RS. That they mention the lawsuit makes it worthy of being added to the article for notability. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

EGF, what "lawsuit?" Fernandez made an ill-considered threat to sue in private email correspondence with the principal blogger at Retraction Watch, which RW chose to self-publish in their blog. The Forbes blogger then reported this as threats of legal action; I find no reliable source for an actual lawsuit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up: The Forbes "article" appears to be an online blog by a "contributor," and comes with the cautionary notation: "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." This is not a Forbes news article; at best it is an opinion piece, but more likely it is an unedited blog. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my choice of words Dirtlawyer1. However, the Forbes article is not in their opinion or blog section. It's in their Pharma & Healthcare section, which makes it part of their news. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not part of Forbes reporting, the user-generated article has just been tagged with a general section. It's one of the "contributor-model" blogs, and it's basically user-generated content with no guarantee (expressed or implied) of any reliable editorial oversight on the part of staff or journalists. Some "contributors" might arguably have independent claims to some reliability, but there's no reliability shown from being one of thousands of "Forbes contributors". __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: fair enough. Then that's SPS as well. So we're back to excluding the info? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

EGF, that would be my conclusion because there are inadequate sources to substantiate what the underlying facts are regarding the "expression of concern", but I would suggest you allow the other previous discussion participants to weigh in. The only third-party source for the threatened lawsuit is the Forbes opinion piece and there are reasonable questions whether it even qualifies a reliable source.

Remember what WP:BLP says regarding negative incidents and allegations: "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." Seems pretty clear to me that there are not "multiple reliable third-party sources" regarding either the "expression of concern" issued by the journal, or the lawsuit threats by Fernandez. The whole matter, as presently reported, strikes me as an un-noteworthy academic kerfuffle -- but please note my opinion may very well change if the journal actually retracts the previously published article in the future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Agreed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking as a long-time Misplaced Pages participant, a periodic participant at BLP/N, and a real-world lawyer, I would not accept either the Retraction Watch blog or the Popehat blog as a reliable sources per WP:RS, least of all regarding facts about a third-party. There is no evidence of editorial control (or legal review) of the comments made in either blog, and, frankly, regular BLP/N participants have recently disqualified far more scholarly and reliable legal "blogs" than either of those linked here. Just because this semi-notable scientist handled his dispute with the Retraction Watch blog poorly, and the blogger posted the scientist's email comments on-line, does not give Misplaced Pages editors the green light to link to these blogs, especially without providing any context from widely recognized reliable sources. There is obviously a dispute of some substance regarding the "expression of concern," but neither linked blog addresses those concerns directly, and both blogs directly or indirectly attack the scientist in a snarky fashion for handling the matter poorly with legal threats that clearly betray a lack of understanding of U.S. law regarding defamation. (One is reminded of the old adage, "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.")

My advice to other BLP/N participants: remove the blog links and any reference to this dispute until the involved journal retracts the scientist's published article, or until other reliable sources criticize the article. At present, the blog comments don't even rise to the level of "allegations" because they don't address the merits of the article in question. My advice to Dr. Fernandez: consult with an attorney who is experienced in defamation matters (libel, slander, false light, etc.) under U.S. law, and don't inflame the issue with a predictable "Streisand Effect" by emailing the bloggers with legal threats. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: the snarky comments included in both blogs betray a less-than-professional, less-than-reliable handling of this matter. The online blog-posting/publishing of Fernandez's unedited and obviously angry email comments also betrays a less-than-professional handling of this matter. I see nothing here that rises to the level of being worthy of included in Fernandez's Misplaced Pages bio. In fact, neither linked blog even attempts to describe the substantive reason for the "expression of concern," and no Misplaced Pages editor participating in this discussion is qualified to sort it out. As far as I can tell, the journal that published the article issued the EOC regarding certain test results in April 2013, but the journal has not seen fit to retract the article in the intervening 19 months. Misplaced Pages has no business taking sides in this unresolved dispute, least of all by linking to blogs that posted private correspondence. I think it's time for BLP/N participants to show some of that caution we are supposed to employ in matters regarding unsubstantiated allegations against living persons. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

and with this posting, I am outta here. blech. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Editors questioning Retraction Watch's reliability in these matters are welcome to peruse the first couple of pages of this search in which many, many reliable sources give the editors and their cursade for transparency in depth positive coverage for exactly the kinds of thing they're doing in this case. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Stuart, the issue here is not whether Retraction Watch provides a valuable public service by publishing retractions issued by scientific journals, or whether Retraction Watch is itself notable per WP:GNG. The question is whether Retraction Watch is a reliable source per WP:RS for the underlying facts that prompted the journal to issue its "expression of concern" -- facts that Retraction Watch never actually provides. The only reliable aspect of the Retraction Watch "reporting" on Fernandez is that the journal issued an expression of concern. Okay. Let's analyze that . . . . What is the "concern?" We don't know. What aspect of the published article may or may not be inaccurate? We don't know. Are there any actual allegations of wrong-doing by Fernandez? We don't know. Retraction Watch never bothers to summarize what the "allegations" might be; it simply reported the issuance of expression of concern by the journal, and the substance of the email pissing contest, neither of which ever addressed the underlying issues. Well, what does WP:BLP say in such cases?

• Regarding public figures, "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."

In this case, there are potentially two sources: the Retraction Watch blog that provides no details, and a Forbes opinion piece (apparently an online blog) that mentions that Fernandez threatened to sue Retraction Watch without providing any of the underlying facts. Frankly, given the sources, we can't even state what the allegations against Fernandez are, because neither source has provided any substantive facts. Moreover, not only are there serious questions whether the incident is "noteworthy," there is also a serious question whether Fernandez is a "public figure," as that term of art is commonly understood. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As a comparison, I think a watchdog site like Poynter.org does a great job of evaluating journalism from the inside and holds to a high standard of professional ethics. I wouldn't use them as the main/only source for a possible legal dispute they were principals in, and I think they meet RS far more than Retraction Watch. The only corroboration or evaluation of this claim seems to be coming from other self-published sources with less reputation than Retraction Watch has. (The "Forbes contributor" WP:UGC-model does not demonstrate reliable coverage, as they allow thousands of contributors to post without being subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. The Forbes name is not sufficient by itself to indicate anything about the contributor.) This is not a comment on Retraction Watch's potential "reliability" in other areas, it's basic WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF about a negative claim with potential COI problems that also happens to be about a BLP. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I would say at this point this "controversy" is a classic he said/they said/etc situation that has received little to no coverage in truly reliable sources. I recall a discussion on this board about an SPA attempting to add similar information to Ignazio Ciufolini where it was agreed by consensus that the controversy was a spat between the involved parties that had not received sufficient coverage elsewhere and would therefore rely almost exclusively upon primary sources, which is something to be avoided. Compare this to the unfortunately common situation where a celebrity has a back-and-forth on twitter (or something to that effect), which we tend to omit as a general rule unless it has developed into a greater issue with secondary coverage and verifiable impact on the subject's life or career, no matter how much the fans or detractors of the subject(s) argue for inclusion. As much as I dislike the drama that has revolved around this article in the past (and much as I find it rather poetic that the subject now wants it gone), I would recommend omitting the information for now. The "Streisand effect" is not evident here yet in my opinion, and Misplaced Pages should certainly not contribute to generating it in any way, shape or form. §FreeRangeFrog 23:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Concur with Dirtlawyer1 and FreeRangeFrog, in that information about the legal threat in SPSs should not be used in this instance, unless reported in secondary sources as being relevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please note, Cwobeel, that the threatened lawsuit is by far the lesser incident/allegation of the two referenced in this "controversy." The real underlying issue in play here is the issuance by an academic journal of an "expression of concern" regarding an article written by Fernandez and published by the journal, which implied there may be a problem with the article or the supporting research. Retraction Watch's online reporting of the EOC is what prompted the somewhat silly dust-up over legal threats by Fernandez. Notwithstanding the journal's issuance of the EOC, nothing has happened of substance in this matter since April 2013, and the third-party reliable sourcing regarding the EOC is somewhere between sparse and non-existent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

*Ariel Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have legal serious concerns about material I find about myself on the Misplaced Pages page in the BLP. In regards to the Misplaced Pages article “Ariel Fernandez” of which I am the subject, I hereby request the removal of contentious material that may be construed to disparage or defame me and which does not inform of misconduct or wrongdoing on my part. I am referring specifically to the paragraph citing editorial notes on my papers in BMC Genomics, Nature and Annual Reviews Genetics. The first two notes allude to differences in interpretation of the data, with no concrete accusation of wrongdoing, while the one in Annual Reviews Genetics simply informs of a postponement of publication. These vague notes do not inform on any specific error or misconduct on my part. The paper at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was withdrawn because of overlap with a previous paper of mine. In the note quoted there is no indication that scientific fraud was involved (thus the results remain valid) and does not delineate my responsibility in the matter. As for the “citation needed” tags now added, my published CV may be used as source in consonance with the BLP policy section “Using the subject as a self-published source”. Finally, my Yale Ph. D. for which a “citation needed” tag was added is already documented in the article with the reference from the Yale University archives at url: http://orbexpress.library.yale.edu/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=9852978 Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. 181.28.240.166 (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez

I disagree that changes are needed. It's true that the "expressions of concern" do not indicate misconduct -- but the paragraph in our article here likewise does not make any assertion of misconduct. The paragraph is thus in line with the sources. The ARG bit is not simply about "postponement" -- that source indicates a possibility that the article might not be published in the end. The sentence about retraction likewise does not make any assertion about fraud. As for using the CV -- articles should be based primarily on secondary sources, and per WP:SELFPUB we should be wary of the note about "unduly self-serving". There's no reason to indicate every award, particularly when there's no secondary source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The article as it stands reflects a negative bias against the subject with an absurd emphasis on potentially harmful aspects. Vague expressions of concern are not informative of anything worthy of the audience attention. A balance assessment of career accomplishments is needed. Editing is requested.

Other awards are indicated in my online CV that may be used as source as per BLP policy: http://www.academia.edu/6141377/Ariel_Fernandez_CV_and_Biographical_Narrative 181.28.240.166 (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez

Dr. Fernandez, please do us a favour and limit posts about your article to one section on this noticeboard. Having multiple sections on one topic on a board where multiple topics are covered does not help discussion. Thank you. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to spare everybody any more time on these controversies. I don't think the subject "Ariel Fernandez" meets the notability criteria. I held the Karl F. Hasselmann endowed Chair in Bioengineering at Rice University, but retired from academia in 2012 only to pursue research sporadically. Thus, I am no longer notable. Please remove my Misplaced Pages article.

181.28.240.166 (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez

I have legal serious concerns about material I find about myself on the Misplaced Pages page in the BLP. In regards to the Misplaced Pages article “Ariel Fernandez” of which I am the subject, I hereby request the removal of contentious material that may be construed to disparage or defame me and which does not inform of misconduct or wrongdoing on my part. I am referring specifically to the paragraph citing editorial notes on my papers in BMC Genomics, Nature and Annual Reviews Genetics. The first two notes allude to differences in interpretation of the data, with no concrete accusation of wrongdoing, while the one in Annual Reviews Genetics simply informs of a postponement of publication. These vague notes do not inform on any specific error or misconduct on my part. The paper at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was withdrawn because of overlap with a previous paper of mine. In the note quoted there is no indication that scientific fraud was involved (thus the results remain valid) and does not delineate my responsibility in the matter. 190.224.156.37 (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez (strike comment by sock of indeffed user arifer. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC))

I don't see anything here that wasn't addressed by Nomoskedasticity above. The Misplaced Pages article does not indicate or imply misconduct or wrongdoing. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Richard Constable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

To whom it may concern,

Please be advised that this office, The Law Offices of Brian J. Neary , represents Mr.Richard E.Constable. It has come to our attention,through our client, that malicious and unsubstantiated comments are being entered into Mr. Constable's Misplaced Pages Biography of a Living Person page.Richard E.Constable More specifically, comment alleging that Mr. Constable has in someway been linked to criminal or corrupt behavior regarding the George Washington Bridge controversy and/or the Hoboken Mayor Zimmer allegations have repeatedly appeared over the course of the last few months. The comments suggesting culpability are completely baseless and should not be allowed to be posted. We would therefore request that Mr. Constable's Misplaced Pages Biography of a Living Person page be closed and no further submissions regarding the above referenced controversies be allowed.

Sincerely, Perry Primavera, Esq. Of Counsel Law Offices of Brian J. Neary 21 Main Street Hackensack NJ 07607 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.190.160 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither the page you linked to nor Richard Constable exists as a page here. Could you find the actual page name and link that? --Richard Yin (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The actual article title is "Rich Constable." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no process in Misplaced Pages to in definitively close an article for submissions. In Misplaced Pages we report what reliable sources say about a subject, and the material you refer to appears to be supported by such sources. If there are specific sources that you may consider to be at fault in their reporting, a better way forward for you would be to contact these sources and request a correction. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Guys... WP:NLT. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP did not issue a legal threat, unless they did that somewhere else. Identifying as working at a law firm while making a request (valid or otherwise) is not a threat. §FreeRangeFrog 00:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It does qualify as a legal threat, the way Misplaced Pages uses the term. He's trying to intimidate other editors. He's also only posted the one item. If his next edit (if any) does not recant the threat, he'll be taken to the cleaners. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat". and A discussion of whether material is libelous absent indication of intent to sue is not a legal threat. So it doesn't look like a legal threat to me. However the correct procedure is If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Misplaced Pages, please contact the information team at info-en@wikimedia.org.. If you are a lawyer representing a client that forum is open to you. Until then, editors more familiar with the subject than I have checked and believe all claims are reliably sourced. SPACKlick (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a toeing the line... and I agree this is the wrong forum for this. Has anyone made an ANI regarding this? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's here SPACKlick (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Butt fumble

Hi. I can't figure out how to "transclude" (or even what that means exactly) a deletion discussion to the relevant noticeboard (as others have done in the discussion). I believe the article should be deleted (or shrunk and merged with the Mark Sanchez article). Any help? Howunusual (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion is a fancy word for the inclusion of a template on a page. I'm not sure what you mean by transcluding an AFD here, which you shouldn't do. If you are trying to call attention to the discussion, please be aware that we generally frown on that, although notifying a board is less worse than asking for !votes from individual editors. As for the article, I don't think it's particularly insulting to Sanchez or anyone else, but that's just me. Certainly not a BLP issue, if that's the point of you bringing it up here. §FreeRangeFrog 00:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with FreeRangeFrog: as silly as this article may be, it does not present any serious BLP issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The point isn't that the article contains insulting language; it is a matter of due weight and calling attention to an incident that has no impact (or interest) other than deriding someone. It is gossip-mongering at its most pathetic. I asked about transcluding because other editors transcluded the article elsewhere, and I couldn't figure out how to do that. Howunusual (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Babu Gogineni

• Babu Gogineni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This entry is about me and is possibly some 10 years old. It is misleading because it is incomplete or inaccurate. I know \Misplaced Pages is not to host my CV but it should be remotely connected to me in the least.

For example I have an MA in Human Rights. That is not mentioned. I did politely notify this but nothing has come of it. Not even an acknowledgement.

I have a Show on Telugu TV in my name. 'The Big question with Babu Gogineni' on 10TV in South India. It has had the 'top ratings' of TV in Telugu for its Sunday morning 9.30 am slot since its launch just 2 months ago. Maybe it could be mentioned? It is also shown on Prime Time Staurday at 8.30 pm. Please check Facebook page 'The Big Question with Babu Gogineni'. See also 10TV website but that is in Telugu www.10tv.in in Special Features.

I used to write a Weekly Op-ed Column for the Newspaper POSTNOON and my column was called 'The Human Angle'.

I ran the campaign against the Nobel Laureate Dalai Lama's grooming a child as a reincarnation and obtained Human Rights Commission orders against portrayal of the child as a divine being. This is not mentioned. Any google or Youtube search on 'Sambhavi' will bring out the hundreds of links. Not mentioned.

Participated along with Richard Dawkins as one of the 5 Speakers at a Darwin Conference in Conway Hall in London. No mention. I organised in 2009 in London and in 2014 the WORLD CONFERENCE ON UNTOUCHABILITY. The 2009 event was the first ever World Conference on Untouchability in the World which was Secular and which was covering 13 countries. The BBC carried broadcasts on it. No mention on Misplaced Pages.

I am Chair of President of Body Organ Donors Association in India. No mention of that.

I am the owner of a training business 'Skillguru' www.skillguru.com. There is no mention of that either.

A recent speech in French in Brussels is on Youtube. As are several other speeches. Could they have been linked?

I did try to alert your editors that the information in my entry could be updated by neutral persons. I even said if they needed references I could provide so accuracy and reliability is improved.

Surely your editors are busy. And it is wrong for me to correct or change entries on me so I have not done that. May I therefore request you to DELETE the entry in my name? That would be a legitimate request after having informed you a few times and not having got even a reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.60.248 (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where there has been any activity at Talk:Babu Gogineni. Where had you requested the edits you mention, if not the article talk page? —C.Fred (talk)

Confirmation names

• Melissa Joan Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What is the accepted handling of Confirmation names, that is, a name taken for a Christian ceremony of initiation? Can it be included in the article? Included in the lede? Included in the infobox? Elizium23 (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Quote from artice: "She chose Catherine as her confirmation name when she was in the eighth grade; however it is not actually part of her name."

What I think should be clarified is that "Catherine" is not part of her legal name. Whether you should include mention of the confirmation name at all is a matter of editorial judgment: Is she a practicing Catholic? Do published interviews exist where she mentions her confirmation name? Does the name (or St. Catherine, presumably her namesake saint) hold some special significance for her? I think it falls somewhere between meaningless trivia and interesting factoid, depending on its significance to her. Given that it is part of neither her legal name, nor her stage name, I don't believe that including it in the bolded text in the lede is appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Dirtlawyer1. Unless it's part of the person's WP:COMMONNAME and they are publicly know as that name. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is self-reported fan site detail. I would omit it entirely unless this name has some external usage. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the "confirmation name" in the Roman Catholic Church is given at "First Communion" Chrismation (the Catholic Church does not have "confirmation" as a rite it uses "confirmation" as the name for what was always "chrismation" allowing my wobble) and is a Saint's name - frequently a Saint corresponding to the child's date of birth. St. Catherine of Siena has a feast day on 29 April, a month with not a lot of female saints. Trivia at best. Collect (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC) .

O RLY? Elizium23 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: Confirmation names are taken at confirmation, not first communion. And it's usually chosen by the person as someone they wish to model their life after, not related to their birth date. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the order of the sacraments. See articles on the order of the sacraments - Confirmation now may be made years after First Communion. Prior practice was to have Confirmation just before First Communion. (those who were baptized as children may also receive the sacrament of confirmation at an earlier age before they receive the Eucharist) The change was made by Pius X. So much for the consistency of the Catholic Church. Confirmation is still before Communion is all the Orthodox and Eastern Rite churches. Protestant churches generally only consider two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper. When people are confirmed years later in the Catholic Church, they are now likely to just stick with their own names (birth names for Catholics are generally Saint names). Hope this clears up the confusion. Collect (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Don Bivens external link Check

I believe the external link to Don Bivens for Senate campaign site leads to an inappropriate site. The site, for the two seconds I was on it, displayed explicit material. This may be because the domain was taken over by something else, possibly a domain name squatter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.241.2 (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I took down the link to a porn site which has replaced bivensforsenate.com. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Martine Rothblatt

• Martine Rothblatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reported via OTRS. An IP has apparently insisted on edit warring over the previous/current name of the subject's spouse for months, despite the fact that the sources use her current legal name. The names of their children were also prominently included. I removed those and left the spouse's name as Bina Aspen. Per WP:NPF, details about people related to the subject but without standalone notability should not be even remotely controversial, since the article is not about them. A few eyes would be welcome. §FreeRangeFrog 21:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Given my changes were almost immediately reverted with "but her name is beverlee" and the long-running edit war, I've semi'd the article. If the IPs are so interested in that they can discuss it in the talk page. If any admin believes my protection was inappropriate they're welcome to undo it. §FreeRangeFrog 21:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

it has been talked about on the talk page a lot. Her name is literally beverlee, as stated in the source. They have 2 children together, and each one has a child from a prior relationship. They then adopted each other's kids. 1 + 1 = 2? 70.208.81.125 (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities#When did David Irving lose respect as a mainstream historian?

This discussion assumes various per se defamatory claims against a living person without providing evidence. Regardless of our opinion, ref desk space is treated as article space, and either references should be provided or comments removed. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor asking the question probably should have included a link to the article on David Irving which does clearly label him as a Holocaust denier with references (including a reference in the lead). Given that, I don't see the need for a reference there. References are included for the statement in our article and while he may not like the label, I don't think him being called a denier is controversial. Ravensfire (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The question is not, "is X a holocaust denier", but has X lost respect in his profession, which is defamation per se. Given the subject is alive, I don't think there should be any unattributed and unsourced comments saying a British Subject is professionally incompetent. Is Ravensfire confident there's answer to the question as posed? If so, the reference should be provided or that question be closed, if not deleted and overseen. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you quite sure that the two statements aren't equivalent? I mean, is it not the case that historians do not look kindly upon holocaust deniers? Holocaust_denial#Public_figures_and_scholars says:

The American Historical Association, the oldest and largest society of historians and teachers of history in the United States, states that Holocaust denial is "at best, a form of academic fraud".

That sounds pretty strong. It's not just "it's controversial" or "scholars disagree". I am not a historian, mind, but would venture that being considered to be guilty of "at best, academic fraud" is a sign of some loss of respect. --GRuban (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

In any case, should not all such claims be either attributed and referenced, or stricken? This seems hugely clearcut, and GRuban's comment seems so polite as to be reactionary, if I were to use the progressive dysphemism. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been taking part in discussion at the biography talk page for years. First off, Irving was never a "mainstream" historian; he was always a bit fringe. The specific answer to "when" he lost the respect of his peers is that Irving started a libel suit in September 1996, and when he lost the case in April 2000 he was finished as an historian, with the last of the doubters turning against him at that time. See our article about the case here: Irving v Penguin Books Ltd. The status of Irving as a defrocked pseudo-historian is not even controversial. Yet there is a regular visit to the article by various usually new editors who try to repair some of Irving's reputation. These visitors are just as regularly dismissed with extremely solid sourcing backing up the assertion that Irving has lost all credibility. There is nothing to do here, folks, no action to be taken by administrators or the community. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

He was never an historian, merely someone who wrote about history. The positive reputation he attained was in finding original documents about Nazi Germany. 06:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)TFD (talk)

Actually, part of the decision process in Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt centered around Irving's high level of competence in finding genuine source materials, but that his interpretation of the source materials was wilfully biased. This led to the conclusion that Irving deliberately and consciously denied that the holocaust happened, when any reasonable interpretation of the documentary sources would prove otherwise. But it did not say that he was incompetent. In any case, the "respect of ones peers" is rather subjective - it is not something that can be measured. And who are his "peers" exactly anyway? I don't think he was ever regarded as a mainstream historian. Shritwod (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that nearly everything that has been said in that thread is supported by the various linked articles, particularly the David Irving one, which although it wasn't linked by the OP, was linked about 1 hour and 20 minutes later and long before μηδείς got involved. It's true that we greatly prefer inline refs to contentious claims, however when a case like this when there's clearly little dispute over the claims and they are supported by references provided. I find this thread a little ironic since μηδείς has in the past made contentious claims about living people on the RD, either without providing a ref, or where the ref didn't actually support their claim. I've sometimes felt we are a little too free on the RD in BLP areas, but it doesn't seem this is one of them. (I have greater concern when the claims are barely supported, don't appear supported or not mentioned in the articles on the people, perhaps because they aren't considered significant.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be extremely helpful, Nil, if you would deem to lower yourself to providing links to such terrible violations on my part. I could then either defend or retract them, innit? Given you don't bother to do so, should I just assume you are correct this matter is vile, and ignore your innuendo? I have no problem apologizing when I know what it is I am apologizing for. Until then I'l just assume the calumny is unsupported. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Medeis, had you never heard of David Irving before this? That's the only explanation I can think of why you would open this thread in this way. Surely you were aware that an English court has already determined that he is an author who deliberately misleads and manipulates historical evidence? Or is your point that he can't be called "incompetent" because it was deliberate? BLP citations are required for contentious statements. The fact that Irving is utterly discredited is not contentios. BLP doesn't for instance result in every time we say "Peter Sutcliffe is a mass murderer" having to provide citations. Some things are just too well known. DeCausa (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

David Eagleman

• David Eagleman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 107.135.96.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last edit removed birth name information and birth date information. Edit is fishy because the last edit in that IPs history added an Eagleman reference to another article. Other anonymous editors of this article have that same kind of profile. Isaiah (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If the edits are good, we shouldn't care. There is one spam complaint though from January 2013. An IP editor 64.71.21.50 (talk · contribs) seems to have been spamming for fora.tv across a range of presenters. This is not much of a problem so far, and did not continue after September 2013. If you disagree with the latest IP edit you could raise the matter for discussion at Talk:David Eagleman. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sardar Raza Khan

Sardar Raza Khan should be removed as a more detailed article Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.57.219 (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• It looks like Mdann52 redirected it to the more detailed article, so it looks it's been taken care of. It seems to be a valid search term, which is likely why the article was created, so there's no need to take it to WP:RfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Reginald Ray

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

I am trying to bring this article up to standards so the "multiple issues" notice can be cleared. I have added more external references, deleted most material that couldn't be verified, and (hopefully) shifted the tone toward a more neutral point of view. That said, I have done very little work on wikipedia, so I'm not totally confident in what I've done; also, I am employed by the subject of this article, so I am not an ideal candidate for bringing this up to snuff, at least not alone.

I would greatly appreciate it if some experienced BLP editors could give it a look. Again, my aim is simply to bring it in line with WP standards, which I deeply respect, and to make it a useful article. I'm not sure if it's quite there yet.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironyoke (talk • contribs) 16:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Rex Ryan

A poster changed his current coaching position to a job that he has never had and sited the change for reason of defamatory reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.74.130 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like this has been fixed and the article Rex Ryan semi protected. Nil Einne (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick Griffin

User:John claims that as they're generally considered unreliable, we are not allowed to cite two UK tabloid sources for a BLP. This is a position I would normally agree with. But the citations are to editorials from notable authors (Max Hastings and Kelvin MacKenzie), writing for those tabloids, offering their opinion on a controversial television appearance the article's subject made the night before. It's impossible to find a better source for these quotes - they exist nowhere else. I think John does not understand the policy and I would appreciate it if someone could confirm that I'm correct. Since he has not removed similar opinions on the same topic from more reliable newspapers, his actions are, in effect, censoring editorials written in tabloid newspapers. I do not see how this can be considered neutral. Parrot of Doom 21:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

By "tabloid" here we're talking about the Daily Mail (Hastings) and The Sun (MacKenzie). The Mail is an awkward one: it's a disgusting rag for its editorial bias. However, like all newspapers working under the UK's onerous libel laws, it's far better on simple accuracy of facts (it can't afford not to be!) than most US papers. The whole term "tabloid" is skunked for use on WP. In the UK that's an accusation that a paper is trivia and celebrity-obsessed but usually still trying to have some grasp on reality (even the Sun). In the US though, "tabloid" means a thing sold in supermarkets for amusement value only.

The particular statements here are two highly subjective judgements on Griffin's character, made by both Hastings and MacKenzie. Both are presented straightforwardly as opinion pieces by named writers of some stature. Such writers are allowed to be subjective, and we're allowed to record what they said. There is no credible case that either Hastings or MacKenzie are being misreported here (even in the Sun). Similarly there is no case that Griffin is being treated unfairly by WP cherry-picking obscure comments upon him by biased commentators: neither Hastings or MacKenzie are left wing ideologues with a prejudicial grudge against Griffin.

Both of these statements, as recently included, should be restored to the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Mail and the Sun are disgusting rags with a proven reputation for making up lies and challenging the victim to sue. Kelvin McKenzie is not a "named writer of some stature" but (to quote from our article on him) ..."was responsible for the "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster" front-page headline. The claims made in the accompanying article, that the comedian Freddie Starr had placed his girlfriend's hamster on a sandwich and proceeded to eat it, turned out to be entirely untrue and an invention of the publicist Max Clifford. The headline is often held up as the prime example of The Sun's supposedly celebrity-obsessed, sensationalist and often inaccurate journalism." Nick Griffin is a right-wing ideologue but that does not mean we should repeat the claims of a proven liar and purveyor of tabloid trash regarding him. Max Hastings is a writer of some stature but even there, if this opinion is of any weight, it will have been repeated, covered or quoted in more serious publications (Hastings has written many books; has he included this material in any of them? If not, why not?). BLPSOURCES as written prohibits us from using material sourced in this way, and it contains no get-out clause that allows us to rubbish living people because we don't like their politics. On a separate note, the behaviour of the complainant may well be considered blockworthy; having a strong opinion about Nick Griffin or misunderstanding BLPSOURCES are both forgivable but edit-warring to restore contentious material to a BLP is pushing it. --John (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what those newspapers have done or are doing, the quotes are opinions not statements of fact. You are misconstruing policy and need to stop, right now. There is absolutely nothing unreliable or contentious about the material quoted. Parrot of Doom 10:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase you John, "Kelvin MacKenzie is of no stature and here's a quote from WP, where he has implicitly passed WP:N, to prove it".

Hastings and MacKenzie can find themselves a seat on Paxman, Question Time and their like, a role that is not open to you or I. Neither of us may like their politics or opinions, but these two men of letters have a stature within the media that is demonstrated by the willingness of editors to pay them substantial money for their words. They are not merely bloggers or twitterers. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

disputed detail is just attacking opinionated against the person (griffin) - if you want to attack him add it - if you want to write a wp:npov bio then remove it - Govindaharihari (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the remaining quotes in that section? Parrot of Doom 10:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The two sources are WP:RS but for contentious claims about living persons they may be challenged, but so may any source making contentious claims. They are "tabloid" in format, but it is well-established that "tabloid journalism" is not the same as "tabloid format." When it comes to opinions of notable persons writing in those journals, however, they are fully reliable. Collect (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I'd dispute most of that - The Mail and The Sun are generally not RS for most of their content because they've both got long histories of making things up and then challenging their victims to sue. When they do, they usually win and a groveling apology from the paper appears in a tiny hidden corner of Page 39 (when the lies about their victim were on the front page). However, I'd prepared to agree with Collect's last sentence, I'd have to agree; the opinions of their own columnists, especially if notable as here, can happily be quoted as long as it is made clear they are op-eds. Black Kite (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh? From what I can tell, the claims are that opinions are held by people who expressly wrote those opinions for the papers. Unless you mean to suggest the papers are not reliable sources for material expressly written for them, then the sources are RS as long as the opinions are presented as opinions. Collect (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's what I said. There is no evidence that op-eds in those papers are unreliable, regardless of how problematic those papers' news content has traditionally proved to be. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, Kelvin Mackenzie is a known liar. No judgment on the content. Sceptre 13:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I seem to be missing the part which proves he's a liar instead of a misled journalist. This 'is' the BLP noticeboard, right? --Onorem (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• So there are people saying that even though Kelvin Mackenzie is a proven liar, and even though he was writing in a publication known for printing lies, it is ok to publish his opinion on a BLP on Misplaced Pages because it was an op-ed? That doesn't make sense. Nick Griffin is a living person, and however much we may dislike his political views he deserves the same protection that any other living person does here. --John (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

John is deliberately misleading here. His original deletion of content was simply marked BLPSOURCES with no attempt to suggest why, either in his deletion rationale or in more detail on the talk page. His second removal had no reason given whatsoever. His third said "WP:BLPSOURCES worth a read at this point", as if I hadn't. His fourth and fifth deletions simply say "BLPSOURCES". At no time has he attempted to instigate a discussion on the article's talk page - I did to avoid a 3RR situation - and gave proper reasons for reinstating the material. Another editor, Parrot of Doom, took up the issue and also gave reasoned justifications for reinstating the material. Both of us have received what amount to threats on our talk pages. This is not acceptable. John has still not addressed the issue and, indeed, has compounded it, by seeking justification in this discussion.

The issue is a really simple one: The section of text at issue is prefaced with the words "The programme dominated the following day's newspapers." Now there a number of daily newspapers in Britain. John wants only The Guardian to be quoted. That is not "dominated" and giving a single example does not demonstrate "dominated"; a selection is required. The selection we had includes the leading left leaning broadsheet (Guardian), the leading right wing paper (Mail) and the best selling tabloid, also right leaning (The Sun). None of these is quoted for evidence of Griffin's nature, activities, views or life. They are quoted as evidence of "The programme dominated the following day's newspapers." No matter that the authors in the papers' articles are highly experienced commentators (who, as it happens, I would rarely find myself in agreement with) the question of reliable sources is totally irrelevant. Where are you going to find evidence that the Mail said this? Well, in the Mail. Where are you going to find evidence that the Sun said this? Well, in the Sun. It's really a no-brainer. And it's not as if the two papers are inherently non-reliable - they're not, as countless other Misplaced Pages discussions have shown. "Use with care" is the best description, and in this case that is how they have been used.

It seems to me that this discussion is only taking place because John has happened to come up against two editors who have stood up to his bullying attitude and refusal to so much as consider reasoned comments. Emeraude (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick point of order, it was I who started this thread. I should have made a note on the article's talk page but I was tired and not thinking straight. Parrot of Doom 17:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• John, of course we should observe BLP in relation to Griffin. We should accurately report whatever dreadful words Hastings and MacKenzie used against him. There seems no solid challenge on that basis. Now are they relevant in this case? That would seem to be the only good grounds for removing these quotes: do they form a worthwhile part of encyclopedic biography of Griffin?. As part of reporting mass media reaction to Griffin's highly notable appearance on QT, they surely are and so are justified for their appearance here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Allow them. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. There are only four (maybe five) vital questions that should be asked to satisfy Misplaced Pages policies in a BLP regarding adding op-ed quotes: (1) Are the quotes Parrot of Doom produced veriable per WP:V and not the product of original research? Yes, they are verifiable. Parrot of Doom didn't make them up. (2) Are they accurate, yet brief, quotations that satisfy both WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE? Yes, Parrot of Doom didn't attempt long citations that placed undue weight on these two opinions regarding Nick Griffin published in the Sun and in the Daily Mail. Parrot of Doom did the right thing; he made them brief and to the point. (3) Are they the product of a WP:COATRACK? No, they're not. Parrot of Doom placed the brief opinions of the two authors in exactly the right place in the article to offset the opinion of the Guardian regarding the event. (4) Are the newspapers reliable in the Misplaced Pages sense that they have editorial control and oversight and are not self-published internet pieces discussing third-parties? Yes, they are reliable. The argument (which strikes me as original research and a little tendentious) that these two newspapers are inherently unreliable because of their perceived rightwing political bent by a few Misplaced Pages contributors strikes me as irrelevent. Equally irrelevent is the argument that because a Misplaced Pages editor personally dislikes Kelvin Mackenzie (i.e., "He's a proven liar") that his opinion published in a newspaper directly related to the subject cannot be neutrally cited. It's the reader's responsibility to weigh the various opinions of the event that are published in reliable sources. It's not our place to decide because Misplaced Pages is not censored. I agree with Parrot of Doom, Andy Dingley, Emeraude, Black Kite, and User talk:Collect. Oddexit (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Lars Weber (1 May 2006). "Voyeurising the voyeurs: inside the celebrity business". Café Babel. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 4 May 2007.

• Yes, allow them. For all the reasons Oddexit stated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ok. Let's say someone wants to add to our article on Russell Brand that Richard Littlejohn called him a "disgusting hypocrite" in his column in the Daily Mail. Here is the reference. Would those defending the tabloid sources defend this? All the same conditions are met. No, it's still not working for me. --John (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Absolutely. Firstly, no one is, as you put it, "defending the tabloid sources". But, without reading Misplaced Pages's article on Brand or Littlejohn's article, the answer is quite simple. If there has been a media reaction to Brand's speeches/writings that needs to be covered, then it would be perfectly acceptable to write something like: "Several media sources were highly critical, including Richard Littlejohn in The Daily Mail who wrote that Brand was a "disgusting hypocrite", Fred Bloggs in the Gleaner who said he ought to know better and Fanny Adams in the Daily Post who thought he was deluded." (With referenced sources.) And, no doubt, similar from those commentators/papers that were sympathetic. Emeraude (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry but I cannot square that with the BLP policy that I know and help enforce. Let alone with ethics. Why does the vile drivel of the tabloid press "need... to be covered", when it concerns negative material about a living person? Oddexit, thank you for at least thinking about this rather than making a "me too" response. I fundamentally disagree with several of your premises. The material contravenes NPOV, UNDUE and COATRACK, but more importantly it contravenes BLP as currently written. It would need special reason for us to bend this important rule and I am not seeing it. It is not a personal dislike of the two sources we are discussing nor of the one particular journalist that rules this material out, but the well-established mendacity and unreliability of the sources and this journalist in particular. To follow up the Brand example, I would be less uneasy about including this material in Littlejohn's article, but I think it could not be used on Brand's unless it were covered in better sources. I feel the same way about this. Finally NOTCENSORED is a dreadful argument when we are discussing BLP, which we are. --John (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• There are at least seven people who disagree with John. Despite this, he shows no sign of relenting. Can someone please unprotect the article and restore the quotes? Parrot of Doom 21:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • We're still discussing it. A discussion is not a vote. I need to see more replies to my question of 21:54 5 December. I have had one so far. I am sure you can wait a few days before you spoon this dreadful shit back into the article on a living person. Why would anyone want to do this ? Is it because you dislike his politics? --John (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The discussion appears very much over to me, with several people explaining why you're wrong. You need to step away from this subject since it's clear you don't understand the BLP policy on sourcing. And frankly, for accusing me of being biased against Griffin, you can go to hell. For daring to improve an article on such a controversial figure I've already suffered people accusing me of supporting his politics. Parrot of Doom 08:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
      • If your idea of "improving" it is adding snippets from The Sun to it, perhaps it is you who need to step away from it. --John (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

IsAnybodyDown?

Could I ask for some eyes on IsAnybodyDown? - we've had a user repeatedly trying to remove the names of one of the people listed as a founder of the site, saying that he was not a founder (this is a site with some negative reputation, so false identification as a founder would be legitimately a BLP concern.) I was the most recent undo-er of this deletion, but I was also the person who most strongly defended the inclusion in the first place, so I'd appreciate a pair or two of eyes on this (no offense intended to the monocular) to either back me up or to note if I've gone wrong. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this article surfaces every couple of months or so. Last time it was agreed (IIRC) that the information is sourced correctly and the removal of the founder's name is not warranted. §FreeRangeFrog 00:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I had forgotten about this discussion. Thank you for reminding me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Frank Schilling

Someone is having fun with this biography by replacing such words as "investor" with "cybersquatter". Not a WP pro, and undid incrementally. Please check — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.190.17 (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Bobby Vaughn (designer)

Has been added to with BLP violations, fluffed up with speculative coverage, slashed back by an account claiming to be the subject, restored, then drastically pruned back to a sub-stub in an effort to clear out the BLP violations. Could somebody who cares more about fashion and designers than I (i.e., at all) please restore it to some semblance of appropriate length and content? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ionuț_Budișteanu

The article is written in a clearly biased manner.

Identifying the person as a child prodigy is a sensationalized statement, which has no real backup.

A very consistent portion of the article is dedicated to praise and anecdotes which are irrelevant to his scientific activity and generally useless. Example: "He started programming his first computer applications, and around the time he was 9 years old he stopped going out for play. As his passion deepened, pushing him into such episodes as falling asleep with his head on the keyboard at night, his parents did not disapprove of his work, as they thought he was spending time with a good reason."

Phrases like "Ionuț is a good example of what a computer scientist means." also illustrate the low quality and bias of the writing.

The whole "Hackerville" section is pure anecdote and personal opinion.

The authors' need to dedicate a section to the asteroid named after the subject is also telling of the writing's bias.

Also worth mentioning is that sources and are from a Romanian news channel that is owned by one of the subject's direct sponsors, Dan Voiculescu, who is actually mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabreblue (talk • contribs) 04:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Beatrix Campbell - again

Earlier in the year there was a discussion here about some of the editing of Beatrix Campbell. I see that an editor - accused at the time of editing under more than one name - has just done some more edits, and has asked for assistance. Perhaps those who were interested before might have a look at this. For example a notable TV appearance, previously removed for unexplained reasons, has gone again. Testbed (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

People known for their weight

Is it worth creating a category for people notable for their weight (see List of the heaviest people)? Or would it just be a BLP nightmare? I note there is nothing equivalent for tall people, though there is a medical-related category at Category:People with gigantism. GiantSnowman 19:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What an appalling area of Misplaced Pages. So many things wrong. Do you really mean "notable for their weight", or should it just say "fat people"? Well known people with anorexia nervosa are known for their weight. When one look at the Comments column, List of the heaviest people actually seems more interested in weight loss than total weight. It also has unacceptable, unprovable claims such as "largest ever documented". It has many of the problems associated with "list" articles, which are discouraged anyway. It has five redlinks! This is freak show stuff. We should avoid it. HiLo48 (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed the redlinks. Seriously, everyone should be forced to memorize WP:BLP before they're allowed to edit articles... §FreeRangeFrog 00:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Superhuman

Superhuman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a list of people saying they have near superhuman abilities. Should we be saying this about living people with no sources saying they have near superhuman abilities? Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Just more freak show stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Quite a bit wrong with that article. I'll try to remember it for later. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

"near superhuman" is a nice euphemistic way to say "human" abilities. I have many "nearly better than average" qualities (that is to say, "average" ones.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sabrina Erdely

Sabrina Erdely's article links to See Also "Duke lacrosse case Jayson Blair moral panic which are implied NPOV accusations against her. She is also categorized under Journalistic hoaxes --Gary123 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, this is going to be a bad one I think. I removed the See Also section and one category. We'll see how it goes. §FreeRangeFrog 00:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a move under discussion right now, which I think would clearly be for the best . Artw (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

regina calcaterra

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

A former employee of Regina Calcaterra referred to as Nathan is posting inaccurate information. Several entrants have attempted to resolve the inaccurate information by providing updated cites, and Nathan has returned to undo the material. First, she has been employed by a state agency called NYSIF since July, and Nathan keeps posting that she is with the prior commission. Second, the first commission she ran looked into public traded utility companies' not government operated utilities, third, she was removed from the ballot in the state senate campaign because she did not meet the policy that she had to be a resident of New York for five consecutive years (she moved out of the state for a short time) not that she was not a resident of the senatorial district. Finally, there are accusations in here regarding presumptions by the US attorney. At not time did the US attorney express that. In fairness, the amendments made were done in an effort to balance out Nathan's additions, but Nathan continuously undoes the changes. Nathan is not an objective party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.148.235.158 (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Um... I've been a Wikipedian since 2007 and my identity is fairly well known. I have no relationship, past or present, with the subject of the article. I've edited hundreds of BLPs and this one is compliant with policy, if not a perfect article. If the IPer wants to discuss specific issues, he/she is welcome to do so on the talkpage. Wholesale whitewashing deletions of content aren't permitted, Misplaced Pages is not an advertising platform. Nathan 03:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The article seem to have a lot of external links in the text, and the "Memoir" section is not very WP-ish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution