Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:04, 18 September 2015

• 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

Andrew Novell

This article in my view conforms to the requirements for inclusion in wikipedia, yet it is constantly being challenged due to insufficient citation. I have gone to a great deal of trouble to make sure that information is correct and that it conforms to the requirements. I can also point to numerous other articles which have little or now referenced citations and yet are not given the level of criticism this article receives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombeverage (talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I cannot comment as to the outcome of the ongoing deletion discussion, but the subject seems to be non-notable. There are currently no sources discussing him in detail, and he doesn't fulfill any criteria at WP:NAUTHOR. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• "information is correct" Nobody is doubting that.

"conforms to the requirements" That is the bone of contention. Neither you nor anyone else has produced evidence that any of the criteria for WP:NACTOR is satisfied. If he collaborated in notable production, please state which one. If he has a large following, which reliable source says so? If he made a "unique, prolific or innovative contribution" to acting or literature, which one?

"I can also point to numerous other articles which have little or now referenced citations" Please do. As I pointed out earlier, WP:WIP. 85.178.206.141 (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Vincent D'Onofrio and Greta Scacchi again

The marital status of Vincent D'Onofrio and Greta Scacchi has come into question again. One interview with Scacchi says she has never been married. Various other reliable sources say they have. Some claiming to be D'Onofrio's current wife is trying to make the changes. The relevant discussions are on the respective article pages. I'd appreciate others getting involved so maybe this can be resolved one way or the other. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe - Inspector General ‖ 06:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between someone saying "I was never married" and a source claiming that they were in passing when talking about something else. It's highly unlikely that the "reliable sources" looked at a marriage license, or anything else which we have a reason to trust more than the one person who should know saying the opposite. This is especially so since the "reliable sources" aren't biographies that say they were married on so-and-so date at so-and-so place--rather they mention the marriage in passing when talking about something else. Use of reliable sources is always subject to common sense. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Shaun King (activist)

There is an RFC on the Shaun King page regarding the prominence we are giving of the recent Breitbart generated scandal. Input would be appreciated. Artw (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Chaunty_Spillane

The page describes a backup actress (extra) and has attracted attention from numerous people for being unambigious advertising. The individual herself may or may not be notable enough to warrant a page but at this point the talk page participants (except the creator) agree that the page should be destroyed until it can be rewritten in an encyclopedic fashion with well sourced and accurate statements.

Northie

Hi, I wish to have the following page about myself deleted as it violates my privacy. Please help & keep up the excellent work Wiki team. Northie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kind regards, Aaron Lee North.

OP has sent it to AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Northie.--ukexpat (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I nuked it. It woudl not stand a chance at AfD and we do not need the unedifying spectacle of people speculating as to provenance, identity of the OP and so on. The sourcing fell well short of WP:BAND/WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Shannon Lamb

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

Recently created article that seems to have lots of problems and needs some serious attention. I came across this from this Teahouse question. It seems that WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME come into play here, but not sure how to best proceed. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This should be a redirect to the incident's article until such time that the subject of the article attains some notability independent of the actual crime. GraniteSand (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That seems appropriate, but not sure if such an article even exists yet. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I also picked this up at the Teahouse, and have done some tidying of the article. It seems that Lamb is no longer alive, but thoughts on the appropriateness of the article would still be helpful. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is definitely a scenario on the event would be more warranted than an article on the individual. However I'm not entirely sure if this would pass WP:N/CA in the long run. It's received coverage, but all things considered it's fairly light. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Terry Ryan GM of Minnesota Twins

The article on Terry Ryan, GM of the Minnesota Twins, skips over the fact that Ryan let David Ortiz go and got NOTHING (0) in return for him when he was cut in 2002. In fact, the article states that

"Ortiz would not show MVP-caliber numbers until he left the Twins a few years later. Similarly, in August 1997, Ryan unloaded another aging veteran for a future All-Star..."

This is an outrage. Ortiz was a rising star in 2002, and two days ago (September 12) he hit his 500th major league homerun.

If you are the first draft of history, you're going to do better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasescha (talk • contribs) 08:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• A quick look at the article shows that it does need to be re-written. The entire administrative career section at Terry Ryan (baseball) is pretty bad, as it comes across strongly like it was written as a news article. It's certainly non-neutral. I'd do it, but I think that it'd be best for someone more familiar with baseball to do it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Nikola Rachelle

HI I am a close friend of the singer songwriter Nikola Bedingfield and it is her wish to be named in Misplaced Pages as Nikola Bedingfield and not Nikola Rachelle. The reason for this being that Nikola Bedingfield is her artist name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.209.145 (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Nikola Rachelle Bedingfield, not because that's her "wish" but because the preponderance of the sources seem to support that as her WP:COMMONNAME.--ukexpat (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Rik Simpson

This seems pretty much like a fan written or self-written article. There is an award, but actually he has won one, an been nominated for 2 others. Also see for the external links. Too much of external from sites that is not proofed.

• I've removed the EL spam. I'll try to take a look at the article later to rephrase things. It's slightly spammy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Rosin Jolly

Fellow Wikipedians, I would appreciate another opinion at Rosin Jolly. A number of IP editors have added content regarding controversy & criticism of the subject, which does not, as far as I can see, appear to be either neutrally worded or supported by the sources. There is probably something which can be reliably sourced, but not the gossipy language which has been added.
Information is likely currently removed, so it may be necessary to review the page history. I am bringing this here for another point of view, which is preferable to a pattern of insertion & redaction. Many thanks for your time. - Ryk72 12:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

James Plaskett British Chess Grandmaster

http://psimg.jstor.org/fsi/img/pdf/t0/10.5555/al.sff.document.nuun1991_11_final.pdf

In 1990 British Grandmaster James Plaskett broke the Apartheid ban.

(note for editors ... nearly all references to this have been purged from google... this is quite a significant event (negative) in his career. It should be included for balance IMO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.167 (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, not. Misplaced Pages likes to have reliable secondary sources making specific claims of fact - and an en passant mention in a list does not quite qualify to take this pawn. Collect (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Toeppen

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

Please review the section Dennis_Toeppen#Arrest. Its details concern the arrest of a non-famous person (for whom I can't even find evidence of a prosecution, let alone the preferred/required conviction before inclusion). The simple policy on notability requires that any event be more than simply newsworthy (which the arrest clearly was, given two good secondary sources including the Chicago Tribune). I and others have contended in Talk:Dennis_Toeppen#Arrest that including the arrest is premature before conviction and seems to violate WP:BLPCRIME and the WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. And that calling it out in its own section seems particularly reckless. There's a bit of an IP/Sock Puppet/COI/Paid Editing mess that I can't quite figure out among some of the available editors and I'd rather not pick an edit fight, but I'd hope they'd respect a specialist from this noticeboard. Please take a look.KevinCuddeback (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Stephan Dahl

Stephan_Dahl seems like a vanity page created by author — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommacao (talk • contribs) 17:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Gillian Anderson

Gillian Anderson stated in a recent interview that she was open to being in a(nother) same-sex relationship and that "To me a relationship is about loving another human being; their gender is irrelevant." On this basis, it seems fair to apply LGBT categories; per EGRS, a BLP subject's own statement on the matter of their sexuality is the grounds for categorizing them in such a way. TonyIsTheWoman (talk · contribs) opposes because Anderson identified as heterosexual in the past.

It's clear that EGRS isn't about forcing BLP subjects to identify with a specific sexuality term. The idea is to prevent categorizing anyone based on tabloid speculation about whom they've been seen with, not to prevent categorizing people like Anderson, Maria Bello, Jodie Foster, or Raven-Symoné as LGBT when they've clearly and publicly stated that they're open to and/or currently in same-sex relationships, simply because they opted not to use the word "gay" or "bisexual."

I do not believe that TonyIsTheWoman's insistence that Anderson's older statement about her orientation trumps her more recent one (because she used a term for the older one and a description of her preferences for the more recent one? because once you say you're straight you can never take it back?) is consistent with policy. What do other people think?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese, While my inclination is that the statement that the subject is "open to being in a same-sex relationship" is not sufficient for the categorisation, it would be best to review the exact statement & sourcing. Do you have a link to the interview? - Ryk72 21:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Here. 'Would she ever consider another same-sex relationship? "I wouldn’t discount it," she says. "I did it before and I'm not closed to that idea. To me a relationship is about loving another human being; their gender is irrevelant."' –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If Anderson had said that she was only "open to a same-sex relationship" I'd agree that the LGBT categories would probably not be appropriate, but here she says "I did it before..." (far more information about that relationship here), in which case the categories are correct. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with that, actually; one can be hetero-, bi-, or homosexual without ever being in a relationship at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories are for defining characteristics. This is not a defining characteristic. It does not belong. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you've missed the boat on that one. Things like country of descent, city of origin, and political affiliation or activism, as well as sexual orientation, are frequently irrelevant to the subject's notability, but they're an accepted part of the categorization schema despite being non-defining. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We take special care for certain things, including religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and criminal history. In those cases we look for defining characteristics. We do this because there are people who are prejudiced against gays, Jews, ex-cons, etc. and getting it wrong could cause harm to the individual in a way that getting the birthplace or eye color wrong would not. In my opinion, you need more than this to categorize Anderson as LGBT. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, do you seriously believe that is the reason that we're careful with this categorization? Because someone might attack Anderson if they found her categorized as LGBT on Misplaced Pages, in a way that they wouldn't if they just knew about her past relationships with women, her feminist views, etc.? Is this actually what you're saying here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it simply means that Misplaced Pages needs to take special care with applying controversy-provoking categories to people. Best to leave them out if the issue is at all ambiguous. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not the case here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There actually are people who say that they have sex with members of their own sex, yet define themselves as straight. Obviously that sort of situation is complicated, but the problem is that we can't go into the complexity of it in a category; based on that, and based on the fact that she previously said she was straight, I'd wait until an unambiguous declaration rather than just using one line from an interview. (I'm also recalling that in the past, when things like this came up here, the interview's subject often said soon afterwards that they were misquoted, speaking in response to a hypothetical, and so on.) In any case, I wouldn't be surprised to see a clarification from her in the future, so there probably isn't much harm in waiting for that. --Aquillion (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion, do you have a suggested time-frame for that? ie. for the length of time after which we take the subject's most recent statement about her own sexual orientation as usable? Again, I don't find anything particularly unambiguous about "yup, I'd date women, gender isn't an important consideration for me," but if your concern is time, can you offer a suggestion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel timeframe matters at all. Once someone has definitively said that they are straight, the only thing that could ever make it acceptable to categorize them as gay is an explicit statement of such. Sexuality is complicated, and some people define themselves as straight even when most observers obviously wouldn't. There are absolutely no circumstances under which I would find an interview question where someone talked about having same-sex relationships to be sufficient to overcome a previous unambiguous statement that they are straight, regardless of the timeframes involved. It's just too complicated and heavy an issue today to do it any other way. --Aquillion (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding her first comment, that she is open to same-sex relationships, this may not be enough to include LGBT categories. However, regarding her comment that "I did it before and I'm not closed to that idea. To me a relationship is about loving another human being; their gender is irrevelant", I think this means the LGBT categories are perfectly appropriate. Having a same-sex relationship and being heterosexual is simply not possible. Someone who has both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships is not heterosexual, as someone who is heterosexual is exclusively attracted to those of an opposite sex. Instead, such a person could be bisexual or pansexual. I don't agree that LGBT categories should be "controversy-provoking" and I am horrified by the remarks from User:Guy Macon, who has suggested that we should not apply LGBT categories in some cases in case we outrage bigots. What, in case bigots unfriend the subject on Facebook? It is also completely wrong to say these categories are only applied in "defining" cases. Sexuality does not "define" anyone. How many of those categorised as LGBT on Misplaced Pages are "defined" by their sexuality? Is Tom Daley "defined" by his relationships with both males and females rather than his diving talent? Is Cat Smith defined by her bisexuality rather than her status as MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood? Is Seb Dance define by his sexuality rather than his status as Member of the European Parliament for London? In that case, if sexuality "defines" people, why don't all LGBT+ people have their own Misplaced Pages pages? AusLondonder (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, there are people who have same-sex relationships, yet still consider themselves straight. See here, too. It is in fact increasingly common for women who identify as straight to say that they've had gay relationships before and to say that they don't find such relationships unthinkable in the future. As the last link says, many women who identify as straight even report having fantasies of lesbian relationships! That is a complicated and sensitive topic, but "they're just deluding themselves, they're definitely bisexual" doesn't strike me as a helpful answer, and it's definitely not one supported by our policy -- our policy is to always respect self-identification even under those circumstances. If we had absolutely no reason to think they identified as straight, I could perhaps see using a statement like this to fill in the blank; but in the face of a previous explicit statement that they're straight, the only thing that can support adding the category is an explicit statement that they are bisexual (or gay, or not straight, or whatever). --Aquillion (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Unless the subject of a BLP explicitly states it, we dont usually label them LGBT (or any other contentious label) We certainly dont do it based on a bendy interpretation of a single interview answer. Like the Jew-tagging, this is just another example of editors trying to push a personal agenda. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• It isn't a single interview answer, though (I'd agree with you if it was); there are entire articles in reliable sources devoted to Anderson's previous relationships (example). The question I'd ask is "would Anderson herself object to the category"? I'd almost certainly suggest, given the multiple interviews she's done in various places, that she wouldn't. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• That isnt the standard that is applied on-wiki though (I am not saying it is not the sensible approach). Unfortunately due to previous endless arguments (see the archives) the consensus has always ended up 'Have they self-identified?' which is ultimately a yes or no. If there is ambiguity due to the potential for harm/upset, the erring is on the side of caution. 'Would X object?' is inherantly unsafe as it relies on your judgement as to what someone else may think - thats too many variables for error to be a safe place to start for a contentious label. See previous discussions RE Jodie Foster for the silliness taken to its logical conclusion however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I noticed the Jodie Foster one. The only tricky bit here regarding self-identification is the timeline. Anderson has had LGBT relationships in the past (and is happy to talk about them). She mentions in the most recent interview that she wouldn't rule out further such relationships in the future. So I've no doubt that someone will come up with "but how does she self-identify now? I would say that the evidence - mostly provided by Anderson - does not preclude the categories being used on this BLP. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree, but I dont think your reasoning is faulty. I would however point out that Aquillion above has addressed that in his objection - some people state they are straight and engage in (historically and currently) same-sex relationships. Interestingly I took a look at the Raven-symone BLP and the sources on her sexuality state explicitly she rejects labels and doesnt want to be catagorised. And yet we still label her LGBT against her wishes. Much like other racial/ethnicity tagging, I have generally come to feel that the sexuality area is much the same - editors who want a BLP subject tagged with their label of choice will end up finding a way to justify it regardless of the encyclopedic value. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We also categorize Raven-Symoné as African-American, another label she rejects, because Misplaced Pages categories and personal identity labels have different functions. Pace Black Kite, I don't think having had same-sex relationships in the past, however open about them she is, would alone justify the use of the categories - she might well say "yup, tried it, it's not for me." (Certainly the reverse happens!) But she's stated clearly and publicly that she would be open to having more such relationships and does not consider gender a factor in deciding whom to enter a relationship with. I can't see how you can spin that as "straight, but has lesbian fantasies". Again, the point of the self-ID requirement isn't to make subjects use specific language, it's to prevent third-party speculation (the difference is "Raven-Symoné spotted on weekend getaway with gal pal - or are they more???" vs. "Hi there! I, Raven-Symoné, am really happy about the SCOTUS ruling because it means I and my female partner can get married"). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We categorize her as 'African-American' because[REDACTED] is obsessed with labelling everyone (including race/ethnicity) and people dont want to say 'Black', so we end up with a category that is factually unsourced as to her family history ("My family has been here for almost 400 years. We’re American." - as an aside, if that makes her African American, I am Polish-Irish-Norwegian-British. Any attempt to describe me as that however would be met with the ridicule it deserves). You might think this is acceptable however I think it shows a lack of consideration, moral and ethical respect for others. If you want to label someone a black lesbian why not shove it in the lead sentence like you clearly want to. Otherwise this stealth labelling by category is just another way of pointing out how someone is 'different'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories are for navigation. Apart from that: is "difference" a problem in your view? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Only in death, that's uncivil, and, as I've already pointed out, we do categorize people (including white people) by their country of descent upon, frankly, a much slimmer basis than we have here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Alas - we have a non-negotiable rule that "self-identification" is a requirement for certain categories about living persons - and like all good Wikipedians we well ought to obey that stricture. We obsessively label far too many people for abysmal reasoning, and we should clamp down on it rather than mealy-mouth "it is only done for purposes of navigation and not in any way to 'label' anyone" or the like. Collect (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Michael Derrick Hudson

Michael Derrick Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article as it reads now looks like it is almost the epitome of a BLP violation; basically, it looks like a hit-piece and contains a great deal of opinionDuedemagistris (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Duedemagistris does not provide specific examples of any violations in his hyperbolic criticism (really, the "epitome of a BLP violation"...there are far more egregious BLP cases on Misplaced Pages, this isn't one. A user with 20 edits probably doesn't know what a real BLP violation is.), and I have explained my aims in writing the section as well an analyzed why the article is unbiased and balanced without undue weight in any direction on the talk page of the article. JackTheVicar (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not the "epitome" but certainly in need of pruning to be sure. Collect (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Anni Dewani

Murder of Anni Dewani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some rogue editors are persistently attempting to inject false information that violates WP:BLP policies into the lede paragraph of this article. The BLP violation is that these additions are libelous in nature as they attempt to infer and ascribe guilt to a living person (Shrien Dewani) who has been legally exonerated of any involvement in the crime.

To provide some context for those unfamiliar with the case; the murder of Anni Dewani occurred in November 2010 during a robbery/car hijacking whilst she was on honeymoon with her husband Shrien Dewani in Cape Town, South Africa. The perpetrators of the crime implicated her husband, claiming that he had ordered her murder. Two of the criminals (Tongo and Qwabe) pled guilty on the basis of this "murder for hire" story and are serving reduced prison sentences in exchange for their testimony. One of the criminals (Mbolombo) was granted full immunity from prosecution contingent on his giving truthful evidence against Mr Dewani. Between the years of 2010 right through to the end of 2014, the crime was reported by reputable media outlets to be a "murder for hire" and this reporting was supported by the fact that the South African courts had accepted the "murder for hire" story when sentencing the three criminals, although the truthfulness of the story had never been tested. In the late 2014 trial of Shrien Dewani, the evidence was finally tested and proved unequivocally that the "murder for hire" story had been fabricated to incriminate the accused and all three key witnesses were found to have perjured themselves repeatedly. The trial was halted without Mr Dewani even being required to mount a defence, the court deciding that there was no credible evidence linking him to the crime. All charges were dismissed and he was exonerated of all involvement. This is all spelled out clearly in simple plain English in the judgement for that trial.

The key takeaway is this; information (the "murder for hire" story) that was at one time assumed to be factual has been disproven by new evidence and court findings which means that the earlier information ceases to be regarded as fact. Consequently it should not be reported or implied to be fact in the Misplaced Pages article.

The problem that we have is that some editors (namely Lane99) are of the opinion that Shrien Dewani "got away with murder" and despite his legal exoneration, are attempting to use Misplaced Pages as a tool to plant libelous misinformation. Specifically, Lane99 has made 7 attempts in the last month to re-add false misleading wording to the lede, stating as fact that Anni was the victim of a "murder-for-hire operation staged to appear as a random carjacking". Lane99 continues to justify this behaviour by claiming to be adding "neutral reliably sourced fact" whilst failing to acknowledge that the information can no longer be regarded as factual.

This flagrant violation of WP:BLP has been pointed out to Lane99 on numerous occasions on the Article's Talk page and on Lane99's own Talk page. This has been to little effect and Lane99 continues to re-add the false information despite repeated requests not to do so unless and until it is agreed on the Talk page. This tendentious behaviour is provoking other editors and is clearly disruptive.

Given the circumstances I would ask that we have some type of mediation and/or arbitration to once and for all make it clear that it is not ok to use Misplaced Pages to infer/ascribe guilt to a person who has been legally exonerated and more specifically that the "murder for hire" story not be stated as fact in the lede paragraph.

The "murder for hire" story was indeed a significant part of this case and does warrant mention in the lede, however that mention needs to be qualified by explaining that it was discredited, and should resemble something like the text below (which is how it currently reads):

Anni Ninna Dewani (née Hindocha; 12 March 1982 – 13 November 2010) was a Swedish woman of Indian origin who, while on her honeymoon in South Africa, was murdered in Gugulethu township near Cape Town, after the taxi in which she was travelling was carjacked. South African prosecutors formulated charges on the basis that she had been the victim of a premeditated kidnapping and murder for hire staged to appear as a random carjacking, at the alleged behest of her husband, Shrien Dewani. That theory was later discredited when Dewani was exonerated, the Western Cape High Court ruling that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations.

Dewanifacts (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Dewanifacts might not the most neutral/uninvolved voice on the subject of Shrien Dewani. The terrifying Scourge of Trumpton 10:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Scourge, that is a fair observation on your part. My name may imply that I am close to the matter being discussed but that is not the case. I am entirely independent, I have no links to anyone involved in the case and do not know anyone who has any link to the case. My interest is solely as an observer who took a keen interest in the case and created a blog with a couple of other similarly minded observers. My input here on Misplaced Pages does not push any POV. I stick solely to the facts established in courts of law, and the fair representation of those facts. As I have pointed out in other similar discussions regarding my objectivity, even if I were a Dewani family member or someone close to the case I would have every right to have a voice on here and to argue for the fair and accurate representation of the facts pertaining to the case. Dewanifacts (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dewanifacts on the fact that he/she is more towards the objective side of editing the article. The murder for hire was simply a theory and of course it should be included in the article. But in user Lane99s edits it comes across as Shrien Dewani was per fact the perp and was freed by the court wrongly etc. I am the one who has followed this dispute the most and that is my take on the situation. In my opinion both Dewanifacts and Lane99 needs to take a wikibreak or start to co-operate. To have two users with so different opinions and both being strong headed will only lead to more blocks and protection of the article in question. I hope the result of this discussion will be that Lane99 learns to co-operate with Dewanifacts and actually want to get a resolution. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The grossly excessive amount of material about the husband has to be reduced considering he was not found guilty at all. In addition, the amount of material framed in a non-neutral manner about this living person has to be excised. Also I did remove some "words to avoid" and material not clearly directly relevant to the stated ambit of the article - WP:BLP has not yet been repealed. Collect (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And your edits have been unceremoniously reverted by User:Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors.--ukexpat (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Collect User:Ukexpat - Unceremoniously? Maybe... I do not advocate for keeping this information in, in fact I think that WP:BLP should probably preclude this information (and I would certainly vote than way, given an RfC). But I know there is certainly not consensus here for this removal and I'd prefer us to gain that consensus first. We're not in a hurry, let's remove this material, but lets do it in the right way... Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is about a murder. Extensive coverage of an innocent person in such an article is improper alas. And as such, I ask you to self-revert and recognize that it requires an affirmative consensus for such material about a living person to be re-inserted. Collect (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Collect - actions to remove violations of BLP do not need consensus, consensus is required to include such material.--ukexpat (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Ahahah, thanks guys! I'm relatively inexperienced and upon rereading the relevant sections of WP:BLP, I completely agree! Also, for some reason I thought that this was on the Talk page of the article not this noticeboard, guess I still have a LOT to learn! Thanks for your patience with my inexperience and your non-confrontational and calm demeanor throughout! Cheers, Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hallo all. A couple of comments. Firstly might I suggest that someone move the last few edits (including this one) to the Talk page where they were intended to be placed? I'm loathe to do it in case it gets me into trouble again! Secondly, I largely concur with the views expressed above; there is a very non neutral vibe to much of what is written in the Article, leaning toward painting Shrien Dewani as a villain who was lucky to be acquitted. I do however balance that by acknowledging that were it not for the fabricated and discredited "murder for hire" allegations leveled at Dewani, this Misplaced Pages article would most likely not exist and none of us would ever have heard of the Dewanis so I do believe that some mention needs to be made and I also believe that the story is only half told if mentions of Dewani's trial and the revelations within are excised. Collect made a number of quite intelligent and well meaning edits to the Article's wording but also deleted vast swathes of highly relevant information (the trial of Shrien Dewani being one such section) that are part and parcel of the discussion of this crime. I rather unceremoniously reverted them as they were all one single edit. May I encourage Collect to please propose the edits on the Talk page - section by section ideally - so they can be discussed and enacted if there's no opposition or consensus reached. I tend to agree that whilst the Article should mention the scurrilous allegations made against Dewani, it need not focus on him as he was ultimately a victim of the crime and also of a baseless prosecution that cost him four years of his own life. I would also like to note that I concur wholeheartedly with User:Ukexpat when he/she says that consensus should not be required to remove WP:BLP violations; only to include potentially contentious material in the first place Dewanifacts (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Where a person has been cleared of an accusation, here is really little need for extensive coverage of that person in regard to a murder - the idea is that the ones actually convicted are the ones about whom the article really revolves. In the case at hand, far more than half the article was focused on the one person who should be least covered in detail. Collect (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2014/188.html
2. http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2014/188.html
3. https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/

Ariel Fernandez

• Ariel Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have a content-related issue regarding the Misplaced Pages Biography article Ariel Fernandez. There is a line repeatedly edited and updated that includes 4 papers by the subject that have been questioned by the journals where they are published. This, in our opinion, is not adding meaningful content to Misplaced Pages. The papers have not been retracted and no definite action has been taken. By the same token, we could include the papers that have been published and have not even been questioned (some 350 of them). We believe the sentence "Four of Fernandez's scientific papers..." should be removed. Please advice.

Argentine Natl. Research Council 201.219.85.151 (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that another one has been retracted, I think there are grounds for retaining the material in question. There's no problem with the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The retraction was on the basis of duplicated material from another published paper by the same author, so it's a matter of proper copyright adherence and not flawed research. The other four papers have indeed been flagged by their respective publications as "expressions of concern", which is a preliminary notification to the reader that some of the research has been called into question, but the claims/rebuttals have not been fully vetted. On balance, I think it's important to mention that the four papers are in this state, but the article should add that Fernandez stands by the data, and perhaps should also give some sense of proportion with respect to Fernandez's overall body of work. Certainly it would be premature to insinuate that something is shady about Fernandez's research. alanyst 15:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC) On further thought, I am persuaded by Only in death and Gamaliel that it's undue at this point. alanyst 16:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see the sourcing that the papers have concerns is primary - the journals themselves. There isnt any third-party coverage as to why these papers having concerns/retracted is notable. Given his body of work, this would be undue without reliable secondary sourcing covering it. Summary: yes there have been concerns (reliably sourced to the journals themselves), but why is this not UNDUE given the lack of coverage by anyone else? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree, if this is just a collection of links to primary sources it is undue. Is this normal number for someone in this field or is this extraordinary? Without secondary sources, we can't say and we shouldn't include it. Gamaliel (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources on the topic include https://scienceretractions.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/on-promoting-an-open-research-culture-policy-forum-science-magazine/ http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-author/ariel-fernandez/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/23/scientists-should-embrace-criticism/ http://popehat.com/2013/04/23/today-in-unusually-stupid-legal-threats-you-cant-write-about-me-because-of-your-blogs-name/ etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

In order: 1st is a blog that contains a repost of a comment by Ariel Fernandez on published findings in general and the culture of blogs/hangers on and nothing specific regarding his circumstances, or in fact mentions his papers being marked of concern. 2nd blog - specialises in reporting on retractions of papers however was threatened legally by Fernandez - hardly impartial, it refers to the 4th source (also a blog) which is actually just reporting on the threat to the 2nd. 3rd is a forbes opinion piece - the strongest of the sources but Fernandez is mentioned in passing (along with another scientist) in order to support the authors statment that scientists dont like criticism. He is neither the subject of the piece and is only mentioned because he has threatened legal action in the past. Weak, weak, passing mention, weak. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The weakness of the mention is irrelevant, since we're not considering notability. Source 2 is reliable on the subject of retractions and is backed up on both the retractions and the law suit by source 3. As to balance I suggest the sentence be shortened and moved to the end of the Fernandez has published more than 250 articles paragraph, where the 4 articles standard in direct contrast to the 250 articles. Maybe something like

Issues have been raised with four (less than 2%) of Fernandez's articles, including data and analysis, which Fernandez has defended and apparent duplicate publication.

Short, well sourced, and it makes it clear that that things are not clear-cut nor widespread in his publication history. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Fernandez has sued Retraction Watch doesn't impair the impartiality of Retraction Watch. If Retraction Watch had sued Fernandez, then sure -- but an action of Fernandez doesn't undermine the credibility of the entity he has acted against. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You have a source that says Fernandez has sued Retraction Watch, rather than just threatened? That would change quite a lot, if there was a reliable source for that. Currently neither the article nor my proposed text mention the threats, since the way I read it it appears to have been a heat-of-the-moment threaten. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my statement was inaccurate -- I was going by what was posted above, but it only says "threatened". Either way -- this doesn't make Retraction Watch "unimpartial". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Using publications to makes claims about the publication is clearly using them as a primary source, and catenating material found by using original research (that is - no secondary reliable source has made the claim) is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:OR. I further note the genetics journal states "Annual Reviews, with concurrence of the review’s author, has decided to withhold final publication pending satisfactory resolution." This seems a lot milder than the imputation given in Misplaced Pages's voice by a mile. Someone - remove this dross -- Misplaced Pages is all too often used to "get at" people disfavoured by editors, and we are required to be very careful in using Misplaced Pages's voice to make allegations. Collect (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the journals are the best source to use here in order to know exactly what the situation is -- and if you're going to choose to ignore the other sources that have been provided then there's probably no help for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am "ignoring" nothing - all I do is state what Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines state in simple language. If you demur, then say so. Attacking me personally does not, alas, impress me a great deal. Collect (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

My feeling after reading over all this is that mentioning these retractions is definitely extremely WP:UNDUE. Papers get retracted all the time. A retracted paper isn't automatically worth including in an article, and definitely not in a BLP. Retraction Watch, as I understand it, covers retractions indiscriminately, which makes it useless to establish significance. The only other secondary source mentions it only in passing, only to note that Fernandez disputed it on Twitter, and is merely using Fernandez to make a more general point -- they make no assertion that the retraction has any significance in terms of Fernandez' biography. My feeling is that to mention something like this in a WP:BLP, we need a source specifically saying that it matters; the sources provided here definitely do not provide enough to include it. This is especially true in the context of the article -- it reads like someone has collected every issue or concern that has ever been raised about Fernandez' papers to try and imply some impropriety or some other negative judgment of Fernandez. This is WP:SYNTH; we would need a source explicitly attesting to the relevance of these things as they relate to Fernandez. Without that, my reading is that the entire paragraph beginning with "Four of Fernandez's scientific papers..." must be removed. --Aquillion (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• please be aware that the subject of this article has a history of SOCKing and edit warring to make the article (and several others) promotional. The IP is likely the article subject (again). I do not support removal of this content, btw. It was hashed over endlessly in the past. It is quite a high rate of questioning for any academic. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you have a source saying that Fernandez has a high rate of questioning for an academic in their field? Without a source stating that, implying it (as the sentence in question clearly does) is WP:SYNTH. The behavior of the subject on Misplaced Pages isn't relevant; what matters is our policy and the clear lack of any sources indicating that this list of retractions has any relevance... though I'll note that there was nothing on the talk page about this whatsoever before I mentioned it there earlier today. Are you saying that people have repeatedly revert-warred to keep negative material on an article that falls under WP:BLP without ever making any effort to discuss it until today? --Aquillion (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Our article doesn't say it. It is what it is; we don't have to imply anything. That content is not coming out; there is zero justification to take it out. Ariel gets all roar-y and we may well have to have the article page protected again. with regard to past discussions, please look at the talk page archives Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The justification for removing it is that it is solely sourced to primary sources. I would support inclusion if the material was written to reflect the secondary sources cited here. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gemaliel. I added the most recent RW source as a secondary source, next to the primary ones. They reinforce each other. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-author/ariel-fernandez/
2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/23/scientists-should-embrace-criticism/
3. Annual Review Of Genetics - Article Status
4. 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
5. Editorial Expression of Concern: Non-adaptive origins of interactome complexity
6. Retraction for Fernández et al., Packing defects as selectivity switches for drug-based protein inhibitors

This seems pretty disproportionate. The three papers mentioned (out of 350 as per AF CV) have not even been retracted, only questioned. The Annual Review publication has been postponed. As for the secondary source, Retraction Watch is just a blog, anyone says whatever they want, no discrimination, no expertise there.

CONICET (Natl. Res. Council) 201.219.85.151 (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

We are uncertain as to Misplaced Pages bylaws. For example, MIT professor Robert Weinberg has had 5 key papers retracted, including several in the highest impact journals, and not a word is mentioned in his Misplaced Pages BLP. On the other hand, Dr. Fernandez has papers simply questioned, not retracted, that are mentioned. In fact, we have not spotted any Wiki BLP for a scientist mentioning papers that have only been questioned. Please advice. Natl. Research Council, Argentina201.219.85.151 (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

First, there is nothing stopping you form adding them. Misplaced Pages is edited by its users and what goes in is largely dependent on who turns up on the day. Second, he did not, as far as I can tell, take the spectacularly ill-judged course of threatening to sue for simply mentioning the established facts. That seems to have garnered a lot more attention for these problems in the case of Fernandez. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Who do you believe, me or your reliable source

Duuh. I meant to post this in Jimbo's page, not here, since it's from a couple of paragraphs up on here! I don't know how to hide posts, could someone please hide this one? Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Greta_Scacchi

Summary. Person claims to have never been married. Misplaced Pages editors refuse to believe her and instead go to the "reliable sources". Also, the person talking about her own marriage has a conflict of interest. It's hard to figure out exactly what these sources are but checking the related talk pages suggests that these are references made in passing of the "her and her husband are doing this" type that are easily explainable by the "reliable source" not bothering to research things they say in passing. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have to concur with the arguments on the talk page. Because a marriage is referred to repeatedly in various RS, we need to have a little more confirmation than a brief mention in a paper and a Tweet that does not mention the specific changes aren't entirely enough. I've sent D'Onofrio a tweet asking him to send a ticket through OTRS about this. It's a little backwards, but necessary. It'd be a lot easier too if this were to get some news coverage since filing an OTRS ticket may not be enough for everyone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Juan Carlos del Valle

• Juan Carlos del Valle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So much unsourced and glowingly interpretative content--this would be unacceptable if written about an artist dead for four hundred years, and is even worse in a BLP, with the implicit possibility that conflict of interest could be part of the problem. One can't turn sideways at Misplaced Pages without bumping into promotionalism. Anyway, now that that's out of my system, more eyes and assistance will be much appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Emily Blunt

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

In a recent, informal The Hollywood Reporter video interview with several celebrities, at the 1:24 mark, Emily Blunt made an off-hand joke about becoming an American citizenship on the day of the Republican debate, saying: "I became an American citizen recently, and that night, we watched the Republican debate and I thought, 'This was a terrible mistake. What have I done?". This off-hand joke (as well as another joke in a Jimmy Kimmel interview about the citizenship process and renouncing the queen) was predictably sensationalized in the media, and criticized by conservatives/Republicans: e.g, , , , .

Blunt apologized for making the tongue-in-cheek comment, saying "It was just an off-hand joke. I think I'll probably leave the political jokes to late-night or something ... taking the oath was "really meaningful." "My two favorite people in the world are American, my husband and my daughter," she said, referring to her and Krasinksi's 1-year-old daughter Hazel. "It was kind of a special day. Yeah, it was great.""

Fyunck(click), in apparently tendentious edits, added the comments to the BLP: , , , , also in this edit making a WP:POINTy declaration that removing the off-hand joke (deemed "bashing her citizenship") from the article warrants removing the encyclopedic, notable information on becoming a naturalized citizen.

The edits pertaining to the addition of the off-hand joke were reverted, on the basis of it not being encyclopedic, per WP:BLP (e.g.,"Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid") Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper, WP:RECENTISM, WP:ONUS, and WP:UNDUE. This has been under discussion on the BLP talk page. The comment was added again along with the apology, by another editor then unaware of the talk discussion. Lapadite (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution