Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:52, 17 March 2008

Biography Unassessed

This article 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Ownership issues in this article.

68.54.62.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is sanitizing this article of any mention of Grills arrest, in several cases calling this information "defamatory" and undoing formatting for reasons unknown. The given reason is this information is "info that is not appropriate in a bio.". I think the problem here is that the anon editor wants this to be a fan page rather than a Misplaced Pages article.

This editor has also deleted similar information from the The Grass Roots article. Since that article is not a biography, I don't think it is necessary to include Grill's arrests there. However, deletion from this article is unjustified and POV. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Grill's drug bust

How is an arrest that i s amatter of public record not apprpriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.27.121 (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The word inappropriate is not an argument for sanitizing this article. Please discuss / edg ☺ ☭ 00:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two standing references to Mr. Grill's former manager. One is an external link with all these details. It is not appropriate to reference a single incident in such a weighted manner to the article and biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.133.89 (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference is to an Orlando Sentinel article which happens to be reprinted in full on Angelo's website, so this cannot be disputed as simply an accusation by Marty Angelo. The Orlando Sentinel is considered a reliable source. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

An arrest that "is a matter of public record" may not be appropriate to include here for various reasons.

• The report of the arrest may not be true. "A matter of public record" makes it sound very official, but that's not always the case.
• The charges may come to nothing; the principle of innocent till proven guilty still applies in California, I think.
• Even if the report is true and even if the person is found guilty, the information may not be important enough to include in the article. There is a tendency to say that no matter how negative a report is, it should be in the article. The BLP policy urges caution. If in doubt, leave it out. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What would be the basis for doubt here? Beyond simply sanitizing the article that is. As for "may not be true", this claim can be made about almost anything, but we have a source, which is the most certainty we can have that this is true; per WP:V, verifiability is sufficient. The WP:BLP policy specifies the standards for a biography are:

• WP:NPOV, which would forbid sanitizing this article,
• WP:V, which would require proper sources,
• WP:NOR, which would dismiss reasoning such as "the report may not be true, so this should be left out".

/ edg ☺ ☭ 01:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT simply an issue of whether the report is true.

1) If you haven't, please read the BLP policy. 2) Is a report of a charge of obtaining painkillers illegally important enough to deserve mention in a lifetime? Celebrities are under huge scrutiny; the same report about the average person would usually pass unnoticed. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Grill subsequently went into drug treatment. Are you sure this isn't worth including in a BLP? / edg ☺ ☭ 01:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps, after reasoned discussion, it might be concluded that the information belongs in the article. What I stumbled into here was not reasoned discussion, but a revert war. The BLP policy says in effect "if in doubt, leave it out". Until there is the reasoned discussion, it should be left out. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I have been unreasoned here. There's no mocking, disparaging, knife-twisting or piling on. This entire incident is kept to one sentence; details about the plea agreement are actually left out. There's no issue of undue weight here except that the article is otherwise fairly short (the fix for which would be adding more information, not removing this information, as you seemed to find necessary). / edg ☺ ☭ 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I'm getting at is: would you be willing to restore the information you removed? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

edg, thank you.

Just to clarify, I was not accusing you of being unreasonable. Before I became involved in this matter, the sentence in question had been inserted and removed eight or so times. That is my idea of a revert war. I don't say there was no discussion - I know you were involved in some - but it was more like a revert war than it was a discussion.

If after a reasonable discussion it was clear that charges had been laid, that they were serious, substantial charges, that they have not been withdrawn in the interim, and that the info was properly sourced, I would not object if the info was reinserted, and I might even put it in myself.

I'm not sure my point is clear. The BLP policy is that if there is doubt, the information is better left out. In the midst of a revert war, there clearly is doubt. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be pointing a finger here, but by removing this information you are iterating an edit war that you object to. And the edit war you are perpetuating "clearly is" the remaining basis for your doubt. If I were to be reasonable in this discussion, what should I be saying here? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Put another way: If I wish to have information removed from any BLP on Misplaced Pages, need I only delete it, and if reverted, commence a revert war, thereby creating "doubt"? Can I do this to get my way whenever I see biographical information I do not like? I'm sure many subjects of unflattering biographies would be glad to have this tactic available to them. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

1) I removed the information ONCE. It had been kicked in and out about 8 times before I got involved here.

2) The principle as I understand it is that under the BLP policy, the disputed information SHOULD be left out until the dispute is somehow resolved.

3) As long as you and I discuss the procedural issues, we can't deal with the substance of the matter.

4) No harm is done if the disputed info is out of the article for a day or two (or at least less harm is done than if the disputed info is in the article when it should be out.) Wanderer57 (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

- re your last point, I'm going to think about that. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to belabor the procedural discussion, but that "last point" is relevant here. A single editor deleted this information five (5) times, and was reverted by four (4) different editors. The single editor gave little or no reason for this deletion, the "defamatory" claim being flat wrong, and "inappropriate" being vague and unsupported. Furthermore, this editor may have WP:COI issues editing an article on Rob Grill (who FYI does not currently live in California). And as for waiting "a day or two", this information has been left out for three (3) weeks while we have waited for this anon to reply to concerns initially brought up on this talk page.

I'm going to ask you again. What can I say here that I have not already? I have presented a third source demonstrating this is a non-trivial issue in this person's life, and I have left out that information which though true could be unnecessarily humiliating to the subject of this article. I've been quite patient with this, I have followed Misplaced Pages procedures, and when you joined this discussion I explained all this to you (other than the part about this taking three weeks). Now you wish to remove this information on a vague and apparently open-ended claim of "doubt". For "a day or two", at which point what exactly happens? How am I supposed to address this? / edg ☺ ☭ 03:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

I recommend posting this dispute—the dilemma about the event, its citation, and the issues of reliable sources and undue weight—on the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

I hope this helps. — Athaenara ✉ 07:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles