Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:11, 18 November 2007

Biography NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Let's try again. Please respect Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Don't link to sources which imply information we lack a good source for. Fred Bauder 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Sources perfectly acceptable everywhere else have been rejected out of hand, one editor has basically assumed ownership of this article and has now removed its history completely, all this without any explenation other than patronising referals to Misplaced Pages policy? Best to just delete the article entirely. --Martin Wisse 14:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we have some guidelines please please please?

Hi Fred - I assume that your recent deletion, and recreation has a motivation, but I'm a little unclear as to what it is.

Over the last several weeks, various editors have posted links to reliable sources from the UK media, and from the US court records. In my most recent post I collated these sources. Is this ok? - Can I repost the list?

Further, I attempted a revision with a specific sentence for discussion, which has now also been removed (it's probably sensible to assume that the page deletion and recreation was in part required because of that sentence). Of course i won't repost it, but could you give some kind of indication as to the terms of this discussion, to avoid productive discussion being curtailed repeatedly by page deletions like this?

What do you think about using the template William Pietri suggested a little while ago? - that would seem to make sense to me at this point. Thanks, Privatemusings 03:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As Fred says, please respect Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. As this is an article about a controversial living person, we must be especially careful that everything in the article must be supported by very reliable sources. The standard is higher than for other types of articles. -- Donald Albury 04:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC) -- Donald Albury 04:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that - believe it or not, I'm asking permission to simply discuss the sources. For example, there is a US Court of Appeal finding on this matter (previously ref.d by Fred) which casts light on the matter - can I mention it? Privatemusings 04:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Mailing List

I've raised this concern on the mailing list, but am not smart enough to figure out how to link to it. A courtesy 'heads up' here seemed appropriate... Privatemusings 04:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw the mailing list post on this, but have to say, at this point, it's absolutely impossible to figure out what the under discussion is. :) I expect others who came here from the mailing are having similar feelings. --Alecmconroy 06:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry - it is a strange one. Basically, this talk page is a recreation of a page deleted earlier today which contained productive discussion (imo) including specifically, links to 8 reliable sources that I happen to have noted (there are certainly more, but I can't recall them). By reliable sources I mean US court records, and UK broadsheet publications (and i think the BBC was in there too).

I think that mentioning those links has led to the page deletion and recreation, but I've received no more info on that point than is on this page. See below for another heart warming indef block threat. This is depressing. :-( Privatemusings 06:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A reversion

I see donald has reverted my bunch of changes. That's cool - but could I encourage a note here too? - I really do think that 'my' version is a little better - with some more current information, and a smoother flow. I hope we can talk about that aspect at least out in the open! Privatemusings 04:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll revert back to my version tomorrow in the absence of discussion here - no big deal, I just think it's better. Privatemusings 05:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be asking for a indefinite block, if you keep on. Fred Bauder 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred-- don't threaten blocks, talk about what you don't want to have happen and what exactly would be inappropriate for him to do in this situation. PM claims, and I see no reason to doubt him, that he has no problem complying with the rules, but you DO have to take the time to lay out what you think needs not doing. --Alecmconroy 06:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

huh? Why? - see Alec's post above for how confusing this is! I'm trying extremely hard to communicate with you, and you apparently keep telling me that I am crossing what seem to me to be invisible lines all over the shop.

I have eight links to reliable sources, previously posted by Geni, Will Beback and yourself (from memory - I can't of course see the productive discussion that has been deleted). Can I at least post them here?

And responding to a rewrite of an article with the threat of an indefinite block is almost too hard a thing to respond to. Way, way, way not cool. Privatemusings 06:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you email me the links, I'll be happy to look over the sources and see if I think they meet reliability. Ideally we could just post all the ones, even the unreliable ones, for the purposes of discussion, but BLP issues are important-- it's a real human being (who i've never heard of) under discussion, so if someone has a lunatic hate site about the guy, perhaps best discussed in private. --Alecmconroy 06:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A guess

Okay, I looked over the links PM emailed me-- seven are from journalistic sources we almost always consider reliable sources in other contexts. The 8th is from a district court ruling, a primary source that probably shouldn't be in the article, but might have utility on discussion.

But, Fred seems ambivalent about listing the sources here, so let's all remember There Is No Deadline, and not reintroduce something that was just deleted until Fred's had time to explain what exactly the deletion motivation was and what previous content should not be reintroduced.

There isn't going to be glut of people desperately seeking information on Giovanni di Stefano descending on the encyclopedia anytime in the next day. :)

I didn't see any of the page before it was deleted, but I suspect there's probably a very legitimate BLP concern running around. I know you and he were on opposite sides of the BADSITES thing, but Fred didn't make his first edit yesterday, and I expect there is an actual landmine here we want to avoid stepping on.

The people who recreate the page will just need a little bit more direction from Fred and others as to what exactly the problem is.

For example, just one scenario off the top of my head-- it could be that the 1980s event of di Stefano's life, although widely attested, is in fact a myth, urban legend, or an error in reporting. Thus, even though the links might normally be called "reliable sources", in this specific case, they would be unreliable. That probably won't actually be it, but it's one "for instance" of why to proceed slowly. --Alecmconroy 07:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG-- the mailing list discussion suggests I actually guessed right! go me.  :) --Alecmconroy 09:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I might add that one of the ways to get to the bottom of this would be for one of the foundation or OTRS peeps to contact the relevant papers and request a statement. Di Stefano claims that they are currently publishing something defamatory-- the foundation could ask if they stand by their stories (which the published and are still publishing). If they don't , they should issue a retraction we can visibly quote in the article, so that Misplaced Pages can be a tool to help Mr. di Stefano put the false rumor to rest. On the other hand, if they stand by the story, we can surely say "A number of news organizations report ..." which would be verifiable and true.

(I'm sure whoever it is who looks into these things is probably way ahead of me here, and may already being doing that anyway) --Alecmconroy 09:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The slightly silly thing happening here is that this was discussed at quite some length, and quite productively on the talk page which was deleted with no rationale provided. From memory, my role in that discussion was kind of putting forward the perspective that the more we avoid even any smell of original work, and just reference the reliable sources (in the exact way Alec suggests above) - the better article we'll have. A sensible discussion ensued which I would undoubtedly paraphrase inaccurately - sorry.

A point I haven't raised yet, but which does occur to one immediately, is that in behaving in this way, we are actually sending very clear signals to lawyers of clients with controversial pasts about how to deal with such material on wikipedia. This is very serious in my view, and very bad. Privatemusings 09:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah-- it'll all come out in the wash, just you watch. We aren't being bullied by a random potential lawyer, we're just taking it slow. Give the foundation peeps time to do their thing, and I bet you dimes to doughnuts, we'll either be quoting a news article or a retraction. --Alecmconroy 10:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's refreshing Alec - and made me smile! - You're right of course, and rather worryingly 'it'll all come out in the wash' is one of my overused phrases. There'll be accusations of us of being the same person soon... thanks for the thought! On the down side, (and again from memory), this has been a 'foundation issue' for about 9 months or so (?) - it's true that there's no rush, as long as we're moving forward, even microscopically! best, Privatemusings 10:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

GFDL vio

As it stands the page is in violation of the GFDL. The history needs to be restored.Genisock2 07:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know the why or how, but I'm sure that history deletions does not violate the GFDL. We delete history all the time, and although I can't explain to you precisely why it is that that doesn't violate GFDL, you can bet that it doesn't. --Alecmconroy 09:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence."

While it is possible in some cases to delete the history without violating the GFDL (basically when the existing version is not a derivative of any of the historical versions) it is not possible in this case.Genisock2 11:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Always unhappy when asked a question I can't totally answer, I asked about this at the help desk, and got a very useful response.

I was recently asked a question I couldn't answer-- when our admins delete page histories, how is it that we don't violate the GFDL by no longer providing that deleted material? I'm positive we aren't GFDL violators, but not sure of the specifics. --Alecmconroy 13:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a violation if any derivatives of the deleted versions still exist, but admins should be careful about this when deleting. For instance, if I delete all revisions after a certain date, all the derivatives of the deleted versions were also deleted so there was no violation. If a revision is reverted immediately, and that revision is then deleted, again there is no violation because there are no derivatives of that version in the nondeleted part of the history. There are ways to do history deletions and violate the GFDL, but also ways to do them without violating the GFDL, and admins should always be careful with partial deletion for this reason. Hope that helps! --ais523 13:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So, if I understand-- since Fred reverted to a previous version, and deleted all the derivative works subsequent to it, it's NOT GFDL violation. --Alecmconroy 13:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a GFDL violation. The version fred reverted to is itself a derivative of a number of versions all of which fred has deleted. Thus the article in it's present form is in violation of the GFDL.Geni 14:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiping of talkpage and absence of the court report sources

So who was big enough to wipe the talkpage? Where are those court sources that were reliable? The US court judgement on Stefano practicing over there, + the UK one. etc --maxrspct ping me 10:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Because this is the one source which I recall Fred has used in a post of his, I'll take the chance that it's within the unwritten rules to post it The US District Court finding. I won't paraphrase it, and would recommend that you don't either until the strange rules of discussion are made a little clearer here. Privatemusings 11:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The legal dispute template

I thought William's template was a good idea, so tried it out. It's been reverted by Guy. No mention as to why. Privatemusings 10:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Because it's not in template space. I suggest you discuss article this with Fred and Jimbo by email, rather than making everybody go round the loop one more time. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On an abstract level, is there any objection to putting it into template space, or putting it in this article, or both? It seems like a useful template we might want to get in the habit of using round these parts. --Alecmconroy 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to move it to template space if there's any demand for it. I left it in my own space because it was a proposal that eventually became moot in its original context. William Pietri 20:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Attribution

It is recommended that all additions to the article itself of a controversial nature be specifically attributed to their source, for example, "in an article in The Guardian dated July 3, 2001 blah blah blah". Editors based in the UK are strongly discouraged from editing this article. Familiarity with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is recommended, especially the provisions which permit libel liability. The main problem with the use of references is that while the sources themselves have probably avoided liability by cleverly implying, rather than stating false or misleading information, our editors have not been so clever. Nor would we want them to be. If you think a practicing attorney is a felon, that somehow slipped through the cracks, find a source. Likewise, if you think a European lawyer is not qualified or permitted to practice in the UK, find a source, don't just quote some report that hints around that he's not. Fred Bauder 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are an editor located in England and Wales, or otherwise wish to read the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the official Statute Law Database contains the text of the Act as amended. Sam Blacketer 14:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The act also applies to Scotland and the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 applies similar restrictions to Northern Ireland. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain where the implying is going on in this article?Geni 16:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not adequately address his current status. The implication, absent an adequate treatment of his current status, is that he is a unreformed convicted felon. Fred Bauder 15:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

His current status appears to be running in the EU elections.-- Geni (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

politics

Talk of an EU run:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhmhgbeyqlkf/

Geni 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

pov

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Any objections to tagging the article with this? WAS 4.250 23:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the tag for now - it seems self evidently suitable to me, although I would prefer to use William's template. Privatemusings 02:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

An improved version?

I believe this to be an improved version of the page, and would like to stimulate discussion. The B bit of BRD is a little out of bounds for me at the moment, so I've substituted this note - I'd like to restore this version. Thanks, Privatemusings 04:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I also have two short paragraphs drafted which deal sensitively (imo) with the two unmentionable issues. If terms for discussion can be forthcoming, I'd like to post them - thanks. Privatemusings 04:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No - this "improved version" that you link to omits many of the detailed citations from recent versions (see e.g. avvocato section, the football section, Strachan footnote etc.) -- it looks as though you have gone back to an old version and modified that rather than made gradual changes to the current and fairly stable page. --mervyn 12:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Mervyn, I've incorporated the new football info, and the ref that I mistakenly removed - I also readded the Crippen info which I think is quite good - providing something interesting, and a bit lighter than some of the other material.

We now have the standing para re : qualifications in the article - and I'd like to suggest a slightly different draft here, using some of the sources previously discussed - I'll wait a while to post it in case specific, sensible restrictions on talk page postings can be clarified.

I also have a draft para (shorter than the existing 'qualifications' para) referring to the other unmentionable incident, and using sources previously submitted - I'll hold off 24hrs or so on that too to be cautious.

Thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind noting a reversion here, Mervyn? I'm not sure I fully understand your reasoning, and it would be helpful to discuss matters here... Privatemusings (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at the intro para of the current version -- it is very precisely worded and every point and quotation is fully cited, your version missed out some of these and introduced some sweeping statements. You also did away with some useful subsectioning in the biog, and a large part of the well-cited football material which seems fine as is. --mervyn (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the link to European lawyer is completely unacceptable. Not understanding that a lawyer licensed in Italy is allowed to practice in the UK has been a source of confusion. Once confused, much follows. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

per the above (and below), I've moved one sentence from the lead to the body of the article, and reinserted the Crippen info - thoughts most welcome.... Privatemusings (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to all, and thanks to Bastique, who fixed my mistake - I had messed up the edit intended, which is now in place. Thanks Privatemusings (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources and proposed new section

Okey dokey - I understand the above, and if I get the chance will try to rework the article in such a way that improves the structure and flow from my perspective, and maintains the important info. referred to above... no moving on for a mo...

Can I repost the newspaper sources, for the purposes of discussion, at this point? I think you'd agree that they are all far more circumspect than the NZ herald article linked to above.

Also, would it be ok to post 2 proposed paragraphs incorporating some references (in a very non-committal way) to certain incidents? I'd really like to show you my ideas for how this article can be improved. Thanks Privatemusings (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Youtube and reliability

from WP:SPS;

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources

I'm not sure if, in removing reference to di Stefano's application for a pardon for Dr. Crippen, Donald is asserting that the information is contentious, self-serving, not posted by di Stefano, or for another reason.

It would be clearer for me if an editor were to assert that the information is dull and irrelevant, rather than removing something quite clearly in my view within the scope of our sourcing policies. Thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Likewise the additional removal of further YouTube links - could you please at least assert why this material is unsuitable, thanks... Privatemusings (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Examples#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with that one, and I hope it's clear that I'm not suggesting YouTube is a good reliable source. What I am asking is the (required) rationale beyond it's reliability for removing the material, which remains unclear to me. Privatemusings (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And to be very clear, I assert that the links, and material, removed have taken out interesting (not terribly, but enough) material from the article, and am minded to return them, I shall hold off to encourage discussion here. Privatemusings (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring to the point of protection?

I don't even think there's an edit war at all! Let alone one that requires protection. Oh well - no note here, no discussion, just a 'pop by and protect' - I don't think that's either necessary or helpful :-( Privatemusings (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• NA-Class biography pages