Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David in DC (talk | contribs) at 20:29, 25 September 2013 (→Brandy Alexandre: One more diff). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

Narendra Modi

In the article about Narendra Modi, There is a section "Uttarakhand Controversy". This section has neither any verifiable authentic primary source nor citation about any authentic claim by the party concerned. It clearly violates the policy about BLP.

Policies about what articles should say Three main policies cover content:

1) neutral point of view (all articles must take a fair, balanced and neutral stance), 2) verifiability (facts in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources), and 3) original research (users' and editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable for encyclopedia articles). A fourth core content policy on biographies of living persons states that biographical articles must be written to the highest standard using only high-quality sources, and provides for more drastic handling of errors or problems in such articles.

The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India which mentions as "sources in BJP"; name of no big leader/ press statement cited), without any original reserach/investigation. This was even clarified by the newspaper later.

Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violation of Misplaced Pages policies(policy no 2, 3 and fourth core content policy) stated above.

The section is purely an act of vandalism.

And since the article is protected, one cannot edit it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk • contribs)

Privacy of youths personal info

I guess this would have been better posted here.. sorry for any confusion pls see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Privacy of personal information -- Moxy (talk)

People (magazine)/People.com at Brad Pitt article or other WP:BLPs

Like I stated at the Brad Pitt talk page: In this edit, John removed People sources and replaced them with WP:Citation needed tags in some cases, citing WP:BLPSOURCES. I have to point out that People is generally not considered tabloid journalism, at least not by Misplaced Pages, which is why the Brad Pitt article was elevated to WP:Featured article (FA) status with People sources. People has been taken to this noticeboard more than once, and is generally accepted as a reliable source for biographies of living persons (especially when it comes to sourcing itself with regard to a person having given an interview to the publication). Instead of reverting John, because I'd rather not get into a WP:Edit war and because I figured that someone else would likely revert him, I decided to bring the matter to the Brad Pitt talk page; this discussion, if I had reverted John, was likely inevitable.

John's response was the following: "It's a gossip rag and is not a reliable source." I asked at that talk page if anyone else was interested in weighing in on this matter before I brought it here; no one else has weighed in there thus far. Though many experienced Misplaced Pages editors, including me at times, do not give the WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS argument much credit or mock it, it is a valid argument in this case. Using People as a source in BLPs, as long as it is used appropriately, is standard practice. I know this from having seen it used in many WP:BLPs, including WP:Good articles (GA) and WP:Featured articles (where the sources are usually extensively analyzed during the nomination process, especially with regard to WP:Featured articles), without any problems. And now John removes it extensively from this featured article. He even removed it from an instance where the text was referring to Pitt giving an interview to People, which I find odd. I wouldn't put People in the same category as the National Enquirer or the Daily Mail at all, especially not the former.

So, yes, thoughts on this matter from this noticeboard are needed. I will also alert WP:FILM to this discussion, considering that they deal with BLP issues with regard to actors often. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, Flyer22 that People magazine is generally considered a reliable source for biographical information about celebrities. As a Time Inc. publication, they have a reputation for professional editorial control and fact checking. Personally, I dislike their editorial emphasis, but there is a big market for celebrity news. And many top-tier celebrities trust People with exclusives because they know that magazine is not prone to publishing fabrications and unverified gossip. All sources must be used with caution, but I think this source is useful and generally reliable for entertainment celebrity biographies. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Cullen's assessment is spot on. People is generally a reliable source for celebrities' lives. Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, John has very recently removed more sources, this time mostly the Daily News (New York), which is also usually a WP:Reliable source for celebrity information and information in general. Just because a source states "gossip" does not make it unreliable. At this point, I feel that John is wrecking the article and I don't know what to do about that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not on my watch, sorry. This is a celebrity gossip rag, not a reliable source. Check out their disclaimer: " THE WEB SITE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL SERVICES, CONTENT, FUNCTIONS AND MATERIALS PROVIDED THROUGH THE WEB SITE, ARE PROVIDED "AS IS," "AS AVAILABLE," WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY FOR INFORMATION, DATA, DATA PROCESSING SERVICES, UPTIME OR UNINTERRUPTED ACCESS, ANY WARRANTIES CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY, PLAYABILITY, DISPLAYABILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, CORRECTNESS, THOROUGHNESS, COMPLETENESS, USEFULNESS, OR CONTENT OF INFORMATION, AND ANY WARRANTIES OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND WE HEREBY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL SUCH WARRANTIES, EXPRESS AND IMPLIED." I also removed material from the New York Daily News, The Sun and the Daily Mail. Does User:Flyer22 think that these too are appropriate sources for an article on a living person? WP:BLPSOURCES says Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. This is a tabloid, ergo it is not suitable as a a source here. This is not, as they say, rocket science. --John (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

John, you are in the wrong, as two other editors have stated thus far. You were also in the wrong at the Ben Affleck article, as seen here and here, and no telling at how many others. That is another WP:Good article, and, to put it simply, you are wrecking articles. That you do not understand what are acceptable sources to use and what are truly unreliable celebrity "gossip rags" is deeply troubling. Stating "Not on my watch" does not make you any more right; nor will it ensure that you will get your way on this. If WP:Consensus is against you in this section, I will restore the valid content at the Brad Pitt article, the Ben Affleck article and any other article I come across where you have inappropriately removed sources. Actually listen to what others are stating to you on this matter, and start analyzing the sources better. A source being a source that mostly or only focuses on celebrity content does not make that source unreliable for biographical information. You are even removing legitimate newspaper sources, such as the New York Daily News. Hello, another source you removed from the Ben Affleck article, is another legitimate source for biographical content. As shown above, I obviously do not think that sources such as the Daily Mail and The Sun are appropriate sources to use for biographical content...while believing that the New York Daily News is appropriate for biographical content. You want to remove the Daily Mail, as you did here at a different article? Fine. The valid sources? No, not fine. Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you Flyer. If John is wrecking articles, then haul him to AN/I, and you better look at my recent contributions because I'm 'wrecking' loads right now. One "Good Article" I came across recently, had the Mail, Sun, Star, Express, and NOTW as sources - some in violation of BLPCRIME. It's not the only Good Article either by any stretch.

So the fact that an article has a star or badge or whatever is often meaningless. If a BLP is to be awarded FA status, I would expect the sourcing to be impeccable. Where there are multiple sources for information I would expect the best to be chosen, and if the People is the only source for something, I wouldn't want it in the article. If there's any doubt over the quality of a source, caution should be excised, especially in a BLP. -- Hillbillyholiday 06:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources you named are generally unreliable for biographical content and often in general (though I don't know what "NOTW" stands for and whether or not that source is unreliable). People, as noted above, is generally not unreliable for biographical content (especially for sourcing text pertaining to an interview that person did with the publication). Neither is the the New York Daily News or Hello. In some cases, John seems to be removing sources simply because they mostly or only focus on celebrity content; that does not make a source unreliable. And People or other such sources being used does not mean that there are not higher quality sources covering the same information. But even if there are, it does not mean that the existing sources should be stripped away from the article and replaced with WP:Citation needed tags or left with no citation at all. So, yes, I respectfully disagree, and do consider John to be wrecking articles when acting in this way...whether the articles are WP:Good articles, WP:Featured articles, or have no special badge. And, again, WP:Featured articles go through a rigorous process of making sure that the sources are valid. People has passed as a valid source in many WP:Featured article processes for living people. And John gets to come in and say, "Not on my watch! I disagree with the community."? Give me a break. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, just because its used in FAs doesn't make it an acceptable source.

Just look at the People website. Maybe they (and Time Inc.) had some credibility in the past. I don't think they do anymore. Similarly the NY Daily News has seen better days:

In January 2012, former News of the World and New York Post editor Colin Myler was appointed editor-in-chief of the Daily News.

As for Hello....Hello? -- Hillbillyholiday 07:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not state "just because its used in FAs ." I stated, "WP:Featured articles go through a rigorous process of making sure that the sources are valid. People has passed as a valid source in many WP:Featured article processes for living people." That means that several or many editors thoroughly examined the sources; it was left in the article during the FA process because the community agreed that the source is acceptable. That is a completely different matter than a source that was added after the FA process. And again, People generally passes as an acceptable source for biographical content. John does not get to come in and start wiping it from articles because the source is not good enough to him. Neither does anyone else. Indeed, he will have many articles to go to purge them of that source, and will get much resistance along the way because there is nothing forbidding the use of that source in policies or guidelines. Personal opinions about that source or any source should not matter on Misplaced Pages. Our policies and guidelines are what should. Flyer22 (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And policy states tabloids are unacceptable. Common sense/editorial judgement should come into play but based on what I've seen around WP, this is in rather short supply. You may not want to label it a tabloid, but the disclaimer John provides makes it quite clear that the People cannot be described as a reliable source.

The fact that BLPs get declared "GAs" or "FAs" with poor sourcing, points to flaws in the process. For example, perhaps editors are concerned with a sentence being cited for the purposes of fulfilling the review criteria, less so with the actual quality of said source. Other subjects on WP typically get reviewed by experts in the field, or by people who at least have some knowledge or have read books on the matter. The same doesn't apply with BLPs, where often comprehensive overviews and biographies don't exist, nor experts in the field. Your argument amounts to OTHERSHITEXISTS. Try searching dailymail.co.uk in WP. Over 10,000 examples, many in BLPs. -- Hillbillyholiday 07:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And People is not tabloid journalism, as the Misplaced Pages article on it makes clear with a WP:Reliable source, and as I and other editors in this section have stated. It's not about what I want to label a tabloid, but clearly about what you and John want to label a tabloid. Well, tabloid journalism is not generally considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. Such sources do not consistently pass the WP:GA and WP:FA processes, especially the WP:FA process, with regard to WP:BLP articles. That, Hillbillyholiday81, is common sense. There is no flaw in the process that People is routinely accepted. Nor is it poor sourcing. An editor's personal-opinion-type-of-editorial judgment on this should not factor in at all. Neither you nor John will stop the widespread use and acceptance of People on Misplaced Pages, and you certainly won't stop newspapers such as the New York Daily News from being used simply because you think it "has seen better days." As for "who are these people that 'peer review' our BLPs?"... Misplaced Pages editors, of course, mostly experienced ones. Maybe you should try experiencing a WP:FA process to know exactly what it entails. Or try getting an article to WP:GA or WP:FA status, and then you will know or appreciate the hard work, including accuracy, that is involved in those processes. I've seen People analyzed countless times in such review processes, by editors as strict as they come, and they judged the source as valid/reliable time and time again. And continue to do so for other articles. Even now at this noticeboard with editors, such as Cullen328 and Binksternet, who are strict on WP:BLP issues, it is accepted. As for WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS, I beat you to the punch on that up above. And as that essay states, WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS can be a valid argument. Two other editors thus far have agreed with me, in this case, that it is. And that disclaimer John provided makes nothing clear to me about People not being a WP:Reliable source. And your search shows nothing with regard to whether or not those articles are WP:GAs or WP:FAs and whether or not those sources were accepted during those processes. This discussion with you is also making this section WP:Too long, didn't read; the last thing I need is editors deterred from weighing in on this because of the length. Flyer22 (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have got an article to GA status and it passed without trouble. Sure, I could spend more time reviewing articles for GA/FA, but I'm more concerned with flushing turds, not polishing them. -- Hillbillyholiday 08:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that you and John are doing what you perceive to be polishing. But at least it seems that you (not John) are only removing sources that actually should be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not addressing the particular source or fact under dispute here, but a note about disclaimers in general. I'll just copy over what I wrote a couple of years ago at RSN.

...it's inappropriate to read a perception of unreliability into the presence of legal boilerplate. This sort of standard disclaimer is common and entirely unremarkable. For example, the New York Times offers, in part, the following disclaimer:

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY CONTAIN INACCURACIES AND TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY MAKES NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY FACTS, ADVICE, OPINIONS, VIEWS, STATEMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION DISPLAYED ON OR DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE WEB SITE.

(In all, it runs to four paragraphs of ALL CAPS SCREAMING LEGALESE explaining why we can't hold them responsible for errors or omissions.) You'll find similar terms on the web sites of many of our generally-considered-reliable sources.

In other words, the disclaimer=unreliable link is entirely a red herring. If anything, the presence of boilerplate disclaimers may be a tenuously positive indicator, as it suggests the source is at least competent enough to get good legal advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

One more in support of keeping the sources. Though they may not be suitable for sole sources about highly controversial information about living people, for more innocuous information People and the Daily News will do.

Oh, and check out the very similar disclaimer on this web site. "This Service is available “as is.” We do not warrant that this Service will be uninterrupted or error-free. There may be delays, omissions, interruptions and inaccuracies in the news, information or other materials available through this Service. We are not responsible in any way for third-party products or services that may be linked to this Service (including without limitation for the availability or content of those services, or for any products purchased on those services), nor for any products or services that may be advertised by third parties on this Service. We do not make any warranties, express or implied, including without limitation, those of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, with respect to this Service or any information or goods that are available or advertised or sold through this Service. We do not make any representations, nor do we endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other material or database displayed, uploaded or distributed in this Service or available through links in this Service." Another "not on your watch tabloid"? That's the Washington Post. --GRuban (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with others People is reliable for this sort of basic biographical information associated with the source in the diff Flyer provided--where he was born, went to school, who he studied with, his comments on the roles he had. I'd even think it's reliable for the personal events sourced, such as marriages and children. I took a look at a few previous WP:RSN discussions regarding People and there looked to be general agreement that People is reliable for these sorts of statements. I can't agree with the removal that was done. Zad68 13:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Going over the sources removed from Brad Pitt, it appears that Pitt and Aniston used the People to announce the news of their split (confirmed elsewhere), and this piece looks well researched with six authors. On reflection, it seems reasonable to use them for non-contentious info. Mind you, it is hard to take the People seriously with headlines like this: Brad Pitt Gets a Haircut for New Film

A problem with these sort of 'high-end' celebrity-focused publications is that (similar to many official biographies), the top celebrities get paid large sums money for these type of interviews and exclusives (the People reportedly paid $4 million to 'Brangelina' for baby pics), and with neither party wishing to seriously rock the boat, the pieces often appear to be no more than PR bumf. Another problem with celebrity-driven publications in general, is that the relentless pursuit of the latest gossip leads many editors to feel they can add every last trivial detail to BLPs. -- Hillbillyholiday 16:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, largely agree. We need to keep in mind there are two separate things here: First is whether People can be relied on as a source of fact-checked information; second is whether the editorial focus of People is the same as Misplaced Pages's. I think the answer to the first question is Yes, and the second is No. I do not doubt that Brad got that haircut, but that fact--even if true and well-sourced--should not end up in our BLP on him. Zad68 16:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Zad, regarding having checked the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard for such discussions, I may have been confusing this noticeboard with the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, considering that I've seen People consistently validated as a reliable source there as well. I've contacted WP:BIOGRAPHY to weigh in on this discussion for greater input. No other member of WP:FILM, except for me, has weighed in on it yet, and maybe one or more people from WP:BIOGRAPHY will.

Hillbillyholiday, thank you for researching this matter further to get a more well-rounded outlook on the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Both WP:ABOUTSELF and possibly even WP:NEWSBLOG allow for interviews in People to be used as reliable source about the interviewee for non-expectational claims. If Facebook can be used for such claims under WP:ABOUTSELF, why can't People? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 17:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF can only be used to support material about the People, not about third parties like Brad Pitt. WP:BLP trumps WP:V (of which ABOUTSELF is a section). --John (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There are still the valid arguments others have made against you above. WP:Consensus is against you, but you continue to ignore those arguments and insist that your argument is the one that's right. One can obviously stand by their convictions, but you don't seem to give the other arguments any true consideration. No matter, because I will be following the WP:Consensus when I eventually revert you. And if this has to go to WP:ANI, then so be it. I'm tired of your obvious power trip. Flyer22 (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick look at the material which is supported by People magazine at the Brad Pitt biography, I see nothing extraordinary about the text. Pitt is the son of some people, he went to a school and played sports, he was a frat boy, he took acting lessons, he appeared in some TV episodes, etc, etc. The really strange thing is that John deleted the People refs but he left the text in place, even when it was a little bit controversial, such as when it gets into the various people Pitt has dated. I think the People refs should be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Even though it's a tabloid gossip rag? You're right, I should have deleted all the stuff that was poorly sourced rather than tagging it, I'll get to that. Keeping those refs would necessitate changing WP:BLPSOURCES, which would take a far greater consensus than I've seen here. --John (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You can get to it, and then I will eventually revert you, and take you to WP:ANI later on. You don't get to remove valid sources based on your definition of "a tabloid gossip rag" and you don't get to violate WP:Consensus because you insist that there is not enough consensus here opposing you. As that policy states, consensus is not about voting, and the one person who supported you has even stated that using People is fine for the material that it was sourced to. Furthermore, as has been stated in this discussion, WP:Consensus has consistently been that People is okay to use for biographical content. You can take your power-hungry, abusive administrator tactics elsewhere...because I will not tolerate it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. As seen in that diff-link, John removed uncited material "per Binksternet," which is ridiculous because that is not what Binksternet stated. That removal also shows that John is willing to edit that article based on what he interprets there is support for here, but not based on what there is actual support for here. It will not be surprising if he reverts me, and possibly blocks me at some point during my reverting him (if I decide to revert him more than once or twice)...though he is WP:INVOLVED. It would be helpful to have editors who have been involved in this discussion helping to counter John's disruption there, and to possibly weigh in on this matter at WP:ANI...should it go to WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Taken to WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with your revert Flyer22. John, you need to present arguments, not obvious red herrings, why you think People is an unreliable tabloid and gain consensus for your view as it's used for sourcing in thousands of article. Simply reiterating "It's a tabloid!" is not helpful. --NeilN 15:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. Jauersock/_dude. 15:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Although Misplaced Pages apparently allows the use of People as a source for uncontroversial matter in BLPs, I suggest that editors might not be aware of some issues with People and a couple of other celebrity oriented publications. For one thing, celebrities now actually control the papparazzi through services such as WireImage; this means that magazines such as People are essentially delivering publicity material for celebrities. This may be allowed on Misplaced Pages, as I believe we can use celebrities' official websites; but, it is not good sourcing because it implies something that is not conveyed to the reader by listing People as its source. I think Misplaced Pages should reconsider this policy, and I think that People should not be allowed for a BLP source for celebrity articles even for positive information. Misplaced Pages editors disapprove of non-celebrities using Misplaced Pages to advertise, why allow celebrities the same privilege? Even if it is in 10,000 articles, if it is not a reliable source because it is manipulated by the celebrities for producing a crafted public image, the effort should be made to remove the articles, if community consensus is reached that it is not an appropriate source. Flyer22, thank you for realizing the community consensus nature of this discussion and opening this thread. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC))

"I suggest that editors might not be aware of some issues with People and a couple of other celebrity oriented publications."

AfadsBad, do you have any links to articles where these conflict of interest issues are discussed? They would be useful for assessing the weight to place on your assertions of unreliability. Right now though we just have your opinion that this is the case. Liz 12:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That does appear to be the standard for everyone else, opinion. However a search on papparazzi and wireimage will bring up the information; wireimage was the director of the change, and the biggest, but it turned highly profitable, jacking up the prices of celebrity pics, and People was the first mag to go along with it by buying some pics showing a celeb reading a different magazine, although I probably have the story a bit mixed up. Unfortunately I am swamped right now, but it seems a discussion of this nature would have had a call for sources from everyone. (By swamped I mean time crunch due to being flooded.) Please run a search and, if you find time, a WireImage article, rather than the Getty redirect would be a place to pop the sources. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC))

People magazine is a celebrity gossip magazine, that much is certain. However, their reputation for reliability is the highest in the genre. Journalist Alexander Cockburn wrote about gossip rags in 1976 for New York Magazine and he assessed People highly. Writer Anthony Slide discusses the magazine in a chapter about the 1970s and beyond in his 2010 book Inside the Hollywood Fan Magazine. Slide characterizes People as "the most successful personality-oriented publication on the market", with its content staying lightweight and trivial, never heavy-handed. Slide and Cockburn both compliment the steadying hand of managing editor Richard Stolley who was previously assistant manager of Life magazine. Veteran fan magazine editor Micki Seidel says that she cannot think of any gossip rag editor who has risen to employment at People. Slide says the difference between People and other gossip rags is the vast news organization behind People, and that it "employed fact checkers to read stories prior to publication, something unheard of in fan magazines." Cal Poly English professor Richard Keller Simon compares People favorably to National Enquirer and other tabloids in his book Trash Culture. Simon says that while the Enquirer likes to dwell on the lurid and dirty, People prefers the upbeat happy ending. He says People, among celebrity-content magazines, "is more likely to be filled with other stories that are closer to the contents of the mainline news magazines." Writer Jeannette Walls describes in her book Dish how People magazine is seen by celebrities as more likely to treat a difficult subject with fairness, for instance with Carol Burnett's choosing to go to People with a story about her daughter's drug abuse rather than allowing the National Enquirer to investigate the matter on their own. Editor Stolley said of the incident that "it helped establish People as a place to go if you had a terrible secret to tell. We would handle it gracefully and sympathetically." These assessments help People to rise above the generally seamy genre of tabloid to become known as the most reliable of the bunch. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't appear to be using People from the 1970s, and your recent source, at least one, does mntion that celebrities are using the mag, negotiating for picture placement, like an ad, a press release. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC))

Slide's 2010 book says People uses fact-checking unlike other fan mags. Whatever text may be offered/negotiated by a celebrity is subsequently fact-checked to arrive at what Misplaced Pages considers a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose celebrity press releases are reliable, if biased sources. Still, I would flunk a student who wrote a biographical sketch of an historical subject using their press releases for anything but dates--you don't allow a subject to dictate what is noteworthy. Carefully crafted information released to the public with SEO does not make it noteworthy. People is scum disguised as journalism--here, let's decide what you want printed about you, as if what you pick is what is newsworthy, then we'll fact-check to make it seem like journalism. Excuse me while I barph. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Every general circulation newspaper and magazine uses press releases for story ideas, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and nothing that would make any reasonable person vomit, either literally or figuratively. Even our most prestigious newspapers publish celebrity news and closely related society news. Reliable publications take a tiny percentage of the more interesting press releases they receive, and use them as the starting point for independent reporting, fact checked under professional editorial supervision. Purism regarding such matters has no basis in real world practice.

Thank you, Binksternet, for doing the research that backs up your opinion and mine at the beginning of this conversation. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in the business and lifestyle sections; which is why I disagree with BLPs, often self-published on Misplaced Pages, establishing notability using those same sources. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Also, they don't write the press reports with the celebrities; they simply look at what has come their way. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Your argument would be more convincing if it referenced reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I referenced your source, above. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

AfadsBad, I greatly appreciate your article content and creation contributions. In this thread, however, I don't think your argument is very strong. If you could find reliable sources to strengthen it you would have a more convincing case. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I simply don't have time. My internet keeps going down. "Academics accounted for 7.6% of all quotations in the data set, while clinical psychologists accounted for 4.0% and advocacy groups accounted for 4.7%. U.S. News and World Report and Time used academic sources for 15.9% and 14.2% of their quotes respectively, while only 0.9% percent of quotes in People came from an academic source. Articles in People relied far more heavily on quotes from victims, accused offenders, and their families (74.5% of all quotes) than any of the other magazines (27.4% of all quotes)." ""The media unquestioningly spread the whole story and even declared her broken bones to be the result of torture which Lynch had to endure "to become a hero of the Iraqi war" (Kumar ibid: 301). Additionally, the glossy appearance of pictures of Lynch in the PEOPLE magazine may have added to the impression that Lynch was some kind of star. Representative for many other magazines in the US its story was "rife with unnamed sources, glittering generalities, just folks elements and breathtaking name calling." Also, the article refers to higher powers, which helped during the rescue ("God smiled on us that night" (Martyn 2008 136-137))." The Manufacture of Heroes: A Critical Comparison of the Press Coverage of the British Campaign in Afghanistan... by Urs Endhardt (although possibly an unreliable source itself, quoting from other sources). I'm not sure why editors want to use People as a source; it is a self-declared gossip rag. Its mission is to sell magazines, not report information in any reliable way. Its biased, slanted (heavily, though both pro and anti-victim, see first article), and it is selling magazines through salacious content. Thanks for the compliment. Most people haven't a clue about the articles I edit, so it makes me seem like a VIE. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

The link you provided, AfadsBad, discusses the incidence of academic sources being used in articles about child sexual abuse. Although I consider People a reliable source on celebrity biographies, I do not consider it a reliable source for any academic topic, including child sexual abuse. If a movie star marries a Nobel prize winning scientist, People is a reliable source for the marriage and the wedding date, not for a description of the scientist's work. Similarly with Nobel prize winner Henry Way Kendall, who was also a mountaineer. A reputable mountaineering journal is a perfectly acceptable reference for his mountaineering accomplishments, but not for his discoveries in physics. Every reliable source has its limitations, and every one screws up from time to time, as People and many others did with regards to Jessica Lynch. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are limiting information to the type of source it comes from, mountaineering information comes from reputable mountaineering journals, science comes from peer-reviewed science journals, and gossip comes from gossip magazines. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine or a gossip magazine.

It is not reputable, because it works with celebrities to carefully craft its stories, which amount to very expensive press releases created working with the magazine's staff, the celebrities and WireImage, etc., etc.

"Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, ...." Even Outdoor magazine has to answer to the public for the reliability of its information. No on is seriously asking a celebrity magazine to answer for its articles. It does publish stories about child sexual abuse, the Catholic Church scandal, for instance. Do we have a policy outlining the specific types of information that we can use from People, or do we just wing it case-by-case, thus creating the type of never-ending drama currently at AN/I? If you want to use People, why not justify exactly what type of information can be sourced to it, and what can't. Then, when you get down to celebrity press release gossip is the only thing you can source to it, go ahead and justify the news-worthiness of the press release. If you can do the last, you can find a reliable source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

From Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources#Context matters "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." Yes AfadsBad, we are, as you said, "limiting information to the type of source it comes from". Your argument isn't helped by suggesting otherwise. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know what you are saying or accusing me of. I said that People should be limited to gossip, in response to someone else's post about limits, I agreed. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It doesn't gossip. So, that leaves People out as a source. Next time I source the authority of a plant order, I will look for the information in cook books. --(AfadsBad (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Not sure what encyclopedic articles you read, but most of us (as well as the NY Times, Britannica, etc.) don't consider information about marriages, family, etc., "gossip". They also often include the subject's views and experiences as gleaned through interviews. --NeilN 08:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If the marriage and family are notable, they are cited in other, reliable sources. People is a gossip magazine. I just got told we get mountaineering information from mountain magazines, and science from science, so, if People is a gossip magazine, and its other information (an article on child sexual assaults) is not reliable, only what its area is, that leaves gossip. And, since, if the event is notable, it is published in a non-gossip rag, then we don't really need People. The book points out that they highly slant views and experiences; and, of course, since the celebrity is orchestrating the interview, that also biases it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Spouses and family always rate a mention in a biography. Show me a detailed NY Times obit that omits mention of them. And yes, marriages will appear in other sources - in other celebrity magazines. My local or national newspaper certainly isn't going to report on each one. Finally, you can repeat "gossip rag!" as many times as you want. Your assertion doesn't make it so. --NeilN 08:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"... One non-obvious example is Larry King, shown in the bottom left corner of the map, who had a high closeness value to People magazine, a celebrity gossip magazine." "Towards an industrial history of celebrity gossip: The National Enquirer, People Magazine and ‘personality journalism’ in the 1970s." "Modern Difficulties in Resolving Old Problems: Does the Actual Malice Standard Apply to Celebrity Gossip Blogs; Cioppettini, Victoria." Claims to Fame Celebrity in Contemporary America Joshua Gamson. And a couple thousand more from Google Scholar. Ouch, this is not the discussion I thought it was. You really think People is not a gossip mag. I don't know where to go from there --(AfadsBad (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

And you really think People is only a gossip magazine. I don't know how you define gossip but Google gives me, "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true." Other editors have pointed out People uses fact checkers. So are you saying People regularly prints untrue statements? --NeilN 10:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent)You might read both the Misplaced Pages article on gossip and on People and some of their sources. I didn't know google was a good dictionary. I use standard sources, you might check them before or after the other suggested reading. "Rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature. A person who habitually spreads intimate or private rumors or facts. Trivial, chatty talk or writing." American Heritage Dictionary. Personal, sensational, trivial, not notable, and created for sensationalism. But, clearly you disparage gossip rags, and I have provided sources that it is one, and ofhers, above, agree that it is one, so, you demand sources, I give them, you still deny it. In other words, sourced, unsourced, does not matter what I say, what the dictionary says, what journals or books say. So, there is nothing left for me to say to you. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

You might want to read Google dictionary. "...the content now came from another Oxford dictionary, the Oxford American College Dictionary" And, yes, we have nothing more to say to each other. You take a binary good source/bad source approach while I prefer to take a more nuanced stand. --NeilN 11:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually you're the one who said only a gossip mag, your emphasis, so technically your binary person is you. You are making me up, so we weren't really saying anything to each other, already. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

PS Note the dead link in the google dictionary article infobox. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

I have never said People was only a gossip mag. I said " you really think People is only a gossip magazine". And PS: Note the sentence "...part of its functionality was integrated into Google Search using the define: operator." --NeilN 11:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's right you said "only a gossip magazine." --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

As I've pointed out earlier in this thread, self-published works like a personal blog or Facebook are considered a reliable source for non-contentious biographical information (WP:SELFSOURCE). You need to establish why a People interview is any different. How is People working with celebrities to "craft" the msg different than self published sources which consensus already says are acceptable for personal information? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Is Facebook or a blog considered a "reliable source"? Do we limit the type of information we can get from these sources? --(AfadsBad (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

AfadsBad, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Liz 12:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That enhanced the situation. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Manipulation as to consensus

I have now been told that by believing editors were truthful in saying there already existed consensus for using People in BLPs, I have essentially established the consensus for using it. No. This is the ultimate manipulative bs. If there never was any consensus prior to this discussion, as admitted by Flyer22 below, I will join User:John in removing it. I do not concede that by believing people, by assuming good faith, that I agree to the use of People. This is disgusting. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

Not what I stated. And you should remove this section because not only is it wrong, it is not respecting thread order (WP:TALK). Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

How about specific guidelines about what People can be used for. If they have a rep for fact-checking, but cannot be used for anything but celebrity marriages and birthdates, let's spell it out, reason it out. But it seems they should be usable for anything, if it is fact-checked. Mountaineering magazines that do articles on otherwise famous climbers fact check the non-climbing information and would be a good source for background on the scientist, billionaire, short-roped celebrity. Appears this is not the case for People. So, what are its limits? I would put the whole magazine off the list of reliable sources for BLPs. You say it is good for some things, not others, please spell it out for me and future editors, with sources. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Time has a strong reputation as a reliable source - and People does not have any reputation for being a problematic source for Misplaced Pages. It meets WP:RS and is generally acceptable for Misplaced Pages articles, including BLPs. I believe this has been stated forcefully by many above. AFAIK, it is not the Weekly World News or the like, and is not a "tabloid." It does not promote specific special interests, and is about as innocuous as is imaginable. It does, in fact, cover people other than film and tv actors, and I seriously doubt the about long discussion affects the opinions of a clear consensus here. And since the consensus is so crystal clear here, I consider the issue quite sufficiently settled. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If it were crystal clear, there would not be days of discussion at AN/I. However, this is not the place for continuing to debate whether editors consider People a reliable source for BLPs. It appears that the consensus here is that many do. Feel free to continue arguing it, above.

Many editors wanting to use People concede it is of limited use, defining that is what is taking place here, in hopes of forestalling User:John's continued actions and future AN/I threads a mile long with a clear-cut linkable policy. I think it can be done if people put their minds to it, and it can be done well, sourced, made readable and useful for other editors. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

The discussion here does not warrant your comments above, and thus seems to be verging on being tendentious, which I am sure you do not intend. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it would be helpful to try and write a guideline defining what can be used from People and what cannot. The range of possible facts taken from People is too large to be easily captured in a guideline. I think the reliable sources guideline is already suitable for this purpose.

As an example, the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake article uses People to support the fact that the pilot of the Goodyear blimp reported he felt the earthquake even though he was airborne. See "A City Trembled, Its People Held", People, October 30, 1989. If the pilot becomes notable then the magazine can be used in his biography to cite his comments about that event. The 1989 article could be used for other BLP facts such as Cybill Shepherd visiting San Francisco at the time.

At the Tad Skylar Agoglia biography, People is used as a general reference establishing notability along with a CNN piece. If People were not allowed as a cite, the Agoglia bio would have more trouble surviving AfD.

Convicted murderer Scott Peterson has a People reference in his biography to support a fact about the removal of a juror from his court trial.

People magazine is used as a reference in many BLPs including Rosie O'Donnell, Mitt Romney, Sean Duffy, Florynce Kennedy, Jennifer O'Neill, Ali MacGraw, Cher and more. Reporting for People can take many forms—I'm afraid that a tailored guideline restricting the use of People would not be able to anticipate all the possibilities. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's our article on the dismissal of juror no. 5, tied to the People magazine:

"One juror was removed early in the trial due to misconduct and was replaced, this on a complaint by CourtTV. A videotape showed the juror and Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson's older brother, speaking as they passed one another in the courthouse."

Here's what People says:

"Juror No. 5 in the Scott Peterson double-murder trial was dismissed from the jury on Tuesday after admitting that he discussed the media coverage with his girlfriend." It also says they were standing and waiting at the security checkpoint, not passing one another. The People article does not mention CourtTV. Maybe the first sentence is simply unsourced?

Are we paid shills for People? None of this information came from People. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

The magazine is not paying me; I don't know about others but I doubt it. I can give the magazine my address to send any checks... <grin>

You might want to ask User:Chaser why the People reference was added to the Peterson bio even though the pre-existing, fact-tagged text was clearly based on something from CourtTV. Perhaps Chaser felt that "Juror Removed" in the People article was enough to support a fact about juror removal; we'll have to hear from Chaser to find out. Unlike your reaction to keep the text and dump the ref, I think the CourtTV text should be removed and the People reference restored, this time with text based on the actual cited source. In other words, the People reference is reliable for us to use. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the Modesto Bee, LA Times, and a CNN report on FindLaw.com, and they were all different; the CNN report on FindLaw is the one I would use, and I think it is what we currently have in the article. I would not use the People in this case; they put it up too early, and it appears to disagree with the other reports. My internet is in and out, so I could not add it, plus I having lived in Ceres, there's hardly an article I would rather edit less. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

I would suggest that we not attempt to limit what People can be used as a source for without first presenting actual evidence that it is a deficient source. I would further suggest that WP:RS/N would be a better venue for discussing general questions about the reliability of a source and its usage on Misplaced Pages. I'll say this much, howeber: People has extensive editorial oversight, a reputation not only for fact-checking but for accuracy, and they are one of the leading publications of Time, Inc., which is one of the largest and most reputable magazine publishers in the world and has been for many decades. It is unfortunate that the magazine's focus on celebrities apparently leads some people to equate it with unreliable publications sharing its focus. Rivertorch (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I provided evidence above, and it was dismissed. It is clear that People is a popular source for Misplaced Pages celebrity editors and nothing will get it removed, no amount of evidence. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Let me clarify. I would suggest we not attempt to limit what People can be used as a source for without first presenting actual evidence that it is typically a deficient source relative to other sources. I know of no source—newspaper, magazine, broadcasting network, or web site—that makes no errors whatsoever. Even The New Yorker gets it wrong sometimes. Rivertorch (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. That is what I provided above. Since all sources are deficient in some way, I will start citing to the Daily Mail. (Talk about binary, since nothing is perfect, we can use anything....) --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Oh, please. No one suggested anything of the sort. That's roughly analogous to someone who's afraid of bridges (because even reputedly good ones occasionally collapse) deciding to swim the mile-wide, icy river. As a community of encyclopedia creators and maintainers, we do need to exercise editorial judgment, particularly when extraordinary claims about living persons are involved, but the scale of Misplaced Pages demands that we establish norms for what sources are accepted in most cases. Over more than a decade, we have established that People magazine is generally acceptable as a reliable source. If there is evidence that we've erred, I'd certainly like to know about it, but I'm not seeing that in this thread. There's actually quite a lot at stake: the number of articles with citations to People numbers at least in the hundreds and probably much higher, and it includes a number of stable articles, including FAs. Rivertorch (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You're the one on about no source makes no errors whatsoever. A pointless and meaningless comment. Already had the time wasting superlatives, and I now see why John acted as he did. Although Flyer22 was willing to discuss the issue, no one here is. "I know of no source that makes no errors whatsoevr." Let's see 'People fact check that. Yet editors can't even quote People accurately. I checked four of the articles you named, and two were wrong. And editors are using it for information about a trial! This is pointless. It is not a discussion. Good-bye. "I know of no source that makes no errors whatsoever." There: nothing from me, too. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Um, if editors can't quote People accurately how is that the fault of People? The same could happen with the NY Times. All editors are saying is that we should use regular editorial judgment when sourcing content to People, the same we do with tens of thousands of other sources. For example, the vaunted NY Times is not generally an accepted WP:MEDRS. --NeilN 22:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: Like I stated at WP:ANI, there is this message from John that reaffirms that he will continue to act disruptively; he makes it very clear that he will continue to warn and/or block editors who use or restore even People sources on biographies of living persons, despite the clear WP:Consensus at this noticeboard on the use of People, the consistent consensus that has resulted from this noticeboard and at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard regarding the use of this source, and despite the sufficient number of comments at WP:ANI about the inappropriateness of his behavior in this regard. Well, like I stated on my talk page, "If I come across John removing sources and/or the text that goes with it because of his personal dislike of those sources instead of whether or not they have actually been deemed unsuitable by Misplaced Pages policy and/or the Misplaced Pages community, I will revert him. ... It is especially important not to let him do so on WP:Good and WP:Featured articles." So, yes, we will be right back at WP:ANI regarding this matter sooner or later. If he warns and/or blocks me, if I see him warn and/or block any editor, for using sources that have been deemed fine to use by Misplaced Pages policy and/or the Misplaced Pages community, I will seek that appropriate action be taken against him. It's already been noted by others at WP:ANI what will happen to him if he does block me for using or restoring such a source when it is a content dispute and not a BLP violation, but he obviously does not care about the consequences that will follow. And so it is what it is. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? If that should, in fact, occur, rather than edit war, why don't you start either a WP:RFC, or, if you really think nothing less will work, a WP:RFAR? Feel free to notify everyone who participated in the WP:ANI discussions, as long as you make sure to notify all participants, and not just those on one "side". Taking action that gets you blocked is never the right thing to do. Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution is. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, GRuban. I wasn't going to take any action that would get me blocked, though, unless resulting in John blocking me. And I am always fair when it comes to making sure both sides get a chance to weigh in on matters. As for WP:RfCs, like I stated above, "given the turnout (number of people participating) for WP:RfC and the other dispute resolution processes, being more iffy, and considering the relevancy of the WP:BLP noticeboard in this case, going to the WP:BLP noticeboard about it was probably the best route." And I'm certain that no outcome from a WP:RfC or any other form of dispute resolution that deems People and similar non-tabloid sources okay to use would cause John to be okay with that consensus. We need a wide-scale WP:RfC on this (one that alerts the entire Misplaced Pages community of the matter), if anything, though John obviously still would not be okay with consensus that opposes his views on this. But actually reading all of the aforementioned message from John, it appears that he has conceded that community consensus is against him on the use of People and the other sources he dislikes but that have been deemed fine to use by the community; he stated the he "concede they are not quite 'tabloids' so strictly fall outside of current policy," which indicates that he may not continue to act the way he has acted with regard to these sources. He might still remove them, but he will hopefully replace them with WP:Reliable sources if he does. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed wording for RFC

1. Can People continue to be used as a reliable source in BLP's?
2. If the answer to 1 is Yes, under what circumstances should People not be used as a source in BLP's?

Thoughts? --NeilN 19:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

Yes. By way of background, it might be useful to indicate that People is already cited in many BLP articles (e.g. replace "be used" with "continue to be used"); I think that wouldn't prejudice the neutrality of the question. Where is this RfC to take place? Rivertorch (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My thought is to put it on WP:RSN or create a subpage off it and advertise it on BLPN, the Biography Project, and probably WP:VPM. I have no comment on your proposed wording change as I really, really don't want to be accused of starting a flawed RFC. --NeilN 20:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Per what I stated in the section immediately above this one, I don't see how this WP:RfC will be useful unless it is a wide-scale WP:RfC. Should WP:Consensus during it deem that People is not valid for use on WP:BLPs, the only way that the results of this WP:RfC can be used to trump the consistent WP:Consensus that has resulted from discussions at this noticeboard and the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard with regard to the use of People being suitable/valid/reliable for WP:BLPs is if there is a good turnout (a significant number of people weighing in on the matter). WP:RfCs these days very often tend not to have good turnouts, unless they are advertised on a massive scale (meaning at the top of Misplaced Pages so that any editor may see it). But maybe NeilN's advertisement approach will sufficiently work. I also agree with Rivertorch to make it clear that this source is widely accepted on WP:BLPs and to briefly note why that is. For balance, it should also briefly note why some editors don't think it is a suitable/valid/reliable source for WP:BLPs. Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

All that can be taken up in the RFC by those who disagree with it, stating that it is currently acceptable practice, as ecidenced by the use in FAs is not the same thing, so I added that to the wording. I think for this discussion, Neil's suggestion plus top of Misplaced Pages is appropriate. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

"Currently accepted practice" is what I meant for "widely accepted." And I see that you tweaked NeilN's proposal by adding "continue to," but I still feel that the proposal needs a bit of backstory (a brief summary of both sides). Most people, at least from what I've seen, who participate in a WP:RfC want a summary of the most important facts right from the start and don't read through enough of the arguments if there appears to be a lot of them (WP:Too long, didn't read). Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought I added a note that we should add a brief background, but I think the primary proposal is not the same as a neutral background, so I would rather get input on this, trust Neil to write very brief background and link to the rest. Would that work? --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

A very large RFC Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Muhammad images linked to prior discussions by way of providing background. I would write something like "A number of BLP's use People magazine for sourcing various statements. A concern has been raised that People does not meet the sourcing standards laid out by WP:BLP." --NeilN 21:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought I could trust you for something neutral. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

• Needs refinement - This really needs to be at WP:RSN and not here, and the RFC as stated is too broad. The response experienced editors will give is "It depends on what the article is, what the content being supported is, and what particular People magazine article (or article type) is being used." Zad68 20:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It will be, this is justbhe propsed wording. That does seem to be what got us into this mess in the first place, and maybe the RFC will need refinement, but let people voice an opinion on the refinement during the RFC, keeping the start wording as broad as possible. This part needs input, but does not need to reach perfection. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
  • The article is a BLP and doesn't the second question provide an opportunity for editors to qualify their answers? There are a hundred potential uses for a source. We cannot list them all. How would you narrow the scope? --NeilN 21:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I have suggestions for that, and I will put them in the RFC, not here. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
    • Neil, well, your response "There are a hundred potential uses for a source" is spot on, and that's the trouble with trying to resolve this with an RFC like the one proposed. With the way the RFC is phrased, no actionable result can come out of it, all we're going to end up with is (at best), "It depends." For this particular discussion, if not everyone agrees consensus is clear, we can ask for an outside editor to close it, and there's always WP:DRN. Zad68 21:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
      • The probability that everyone will agree on anything is zero, yet consensus has been met on many things. I thing you can feel free to try to sink the RFC on the basis of whatever when it opens. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
      • I think two results can come out of it. A consensus to avoid using People on BLPs altogether. Consensus not to use People in specific cases. This would cut down on some of the arguments. --NeilN 21:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
        • NeilN, I guess I'd be happy with a result of "People is useful for certain things but not others." What the "certain things" are will be debated. What I would like to avoid is unthinking, blind removal of every use of People in every BLP everywhere, and if this RFC can achieve that, I support it. Zad68 02:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Or even to continue with the "common sense" method that I consider absurd, but we will have a linkable community based guideline, whatever we wind up with. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
        • In giving this more thought, I see two potential problems. One, the singling out of People. There are other magazines that aren't entirely dissimilar, and I have to wonder whether a decision on this one (assuming the RfC results in a clear decision) would open the door to a plethora of comparable RfCs, each geared toward one specific publication. Also, if there's any chance at all that we will end up with a decision to avoid using People on any BLPs, then the current status of its usage as a source ought to be quantified and noted in the RfC wording. Otherwise, we may end up with a situation where a vast number of articles need to be "fixed" and watched carefully—maybe more carefully than the available human resources we can muster on short notice. Rivertorch (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Which other magazines? What do you mean by "quantified?" --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
            • Us Weekly is very similar to People, founded as a response to People's success. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Do editors routinely use it in BLPs like People? My impression was editors were claiming that People was different fom other tabloids, not like US, in other words? --(AfadsBad (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
            • I specifically avoided mentioning other sources as I wanted a decision on People itself, based on its own merits, and not a "class of magazine", as People is used in a huge number of articles. --NeilN 01:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Right, I thought that was your reasoning. My questions remain. For the record, while People and US may have certain tabloid-like qualities, neither qualifies as a tabloid (and Entertainment Weekly isn't one either, as long as we're on the subject). Rivertorch (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
                • Can you link to FAs where editors are using these other sources? I only saw disussions about People? -(AfadsBad (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

Though we will be focusing on People for this WP:RfC, something needs to be done with regard to the New York Daily News as well, considering that John has recently indicated on his talk page to Herostratus that he still considers that a tabloid. He likely feels that way because it uses tabloid (newspaper format). But like I noted at WP:ANI, "As the Tabloid (newspaper format) article points out, tabloid format does not equal 'tabloid.' Many valid newspapers use that format." NeilN also pointed this out to John with regard to that source. Additionally, judging by that aforementioned linked reply to Herostratus, John seems to think that this WP:RfC will trump the widespread/consistent WP:Consensus with regard to using People as a source on biographies of living persons if it produces WP:Consensus not to use it, which is yet another downside to this WP:RfC; the last thing we need is John thinking that this WP:RfC gives him free license to remove the source whenever he comes across it in a biography of a living person. If the WP:RfC produces a great turnout, then he might have a leg to stand on in that case; I would also be more willing to not use People or to restore People in that case. Flyer22 (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

On the one hand having a whole, wide-ranging RFC on just one tabloid is far too narrow - what about all the others? On the other hand, trying to define clear rules for use and disallowance of all the articles that have been published (or may be published in the future) by one tabloid is far too wide - who knows what they might come up with? Actually WP:BLPSOURCES is very clear: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." The linked article explains that tabloid journalism is a style of journalism, not a paper size, and may appear at some time in any publication. A better RFC would be to determine the policy definition of tabloid journalism rather than relying on a main-space article to do it for us. I think sidelining this into a whole issue about one or a few particular publications, effectively derails the whole purpose of the debate. --Nigelj (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the WP:Consensus here is that People is not a tabloid (as noted in the section immediately above this one, even John has conceded to the view that People is not a tabloid), but that sources that are clearly tabloids (such as The Sun) should generally not be used on biographies of living persons. But, obviously, people have different opinions on what a tabloid is. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I simply do not see tabloids being added and accepted as sources in BLPs on Misplaced Pages. I see People being used extensively, and that is why this RFC arose, editorial disagreement about it being onsidered a reliable source. An editor claimed US is being used, but I can find articles, FAs, with People citations, but not a single one with a citation to US. The New York Daily News is not a tabloid, so it should not be discussed here. I will look at what User:John is doing there, but can we leave that issue out of this?

Is US being used as a reliable source for BLPs? If so, please provide examples. Thanks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

My point is that there is no policy that I know of for or against using tabloid newspapers as sources, and there is never likely to be one. The relevant policy clearly states that there are restrictions on the use of tabloid journalism as a BLP source, and (via a link) that tabloid journalism is possible in almost any journal, as well as that there are items that are probably not tabloid journalism in almost every low quality rag too, from time to time. Will nobody address this point? I think I have made it about four times so far, in two different fora, and every time the debate about 'The People' and other specific tabloid titles continues either side of my comment as if I hadn't spoken. --Nigelj (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to be clearer: Some articles in People are examples of unreliable 'tabloid' journalism, and in the same issue others may not be, and that depends on the article, the author and the background and purpose of the article. But the same is true for almost every other journal, magazine and newspaper, just the proportions will differ. Trying to define whether People is tabloid or not, or whether People is a reliable source or not, (in general) are hopeless and a complete waste of the community's time. The useful thing to do is to try to set out guidelines for how to detect whether a certain statement in any publication is 'tabloid' or not, and so whether it is useful as a BLP source. That's what I think. --Nigelj (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This forum is about the use of People. You raise a different issue that I don't see a problem with on Misplaced Pages, I see tabloid sources removed from BLPs, all of the time, but I see editors fighting about People. And I asked for examples of tabloids being used in BLPs, and every time I do, it is as if I had not spoken. In fact, we are now discussing your issue in response to my ignored question. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

Surely editors who want to deflect the discussion about the removal of a 'tabloid source' into a question of 'Is People a tabloid, or is it not?' are simply using a strawman technique? Such removals (or additions) have to be justified on the case-by-case basis of 'is this piece of article text relying on sourcing to tabloid journalism, or is it not?' There will never be a useful answer to the first question, and while you're all off debating it, (a) the detailed sourcing questions remain un-addressed, and (b) the idea of blanket deletions remains an apparent option. --Nigelj (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nigelj references to some sources will be removed uncontroversially and without the need for justification beyond "not a WP:RS" because their reputation for doing tabloid journalism outweighs any non-tabloid pieces they could produce. We are trying to determine if People meets that definition. --NeilN 23:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

All right, we will never all agree on the precise wording and aims so I'm going to move forward in a few hours and get a RFC on WP:RSN going on a narrow topic:

A number of biographies use People magazine for sourcing various statements. Concerns have been raised that People does not meet the sourcing standards laid out by WP:BLP. The full discussion can be found here

1. Can People continue to be used as a reliable source in BLP's?
2. If the answer to 1 is Yes, under what circumstances should People not be used as a source in BLP's?

--NeilN 18:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I still can't help but feel that the WP:RfC should make it clear that there has been consistent WP:Consensus to use People in biographies of living persons, not simply that it is used in biographies of livings persons. To me, that would be more neutrally countering the "Concerns have been raised" line. After all, plenty of unsuitable sources are often used in WP:BLPs; for example, Internet Movie Database (IMDb) is generally shunned by experienced editors with regard to using it as a source for biographies of livings persons or for anything in general, with a few exceptions, but it is still commonly found in WP:BLPs and in general in the non-exception ways. Better to state upfront that there is consensus to use People than to expect that most or even enough editors are going to sufficiently read enough of this long WP:BLP noticeboard discussion about the source to find out that consensus exists for using the source. They may look at the headcount and come to the conclusion that People has been deemed okay, but the weight of the arguments matter more...and too many people have a "too long, didn't read" mentality (I'm usually not one of those people, but we have many of them at this site). Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a conversation (prior to this) that discusses this consensus? Or is it a more a silent agreement "we've always used People" kind of thing? --NeilN 19:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Then add and link to this consensus when the RFC opens, Flyer22. But, also Neil22 will add all community discussion and consensus links that are relevant. Not an issue; include all important information with links. Yes, it will be included. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

I could go digging in the archives and see if I find past discussions, NeilN, though that would take some time and I'm too lazy to do that at this time. But from the initial part of this long discussion above (in the first part of the section), it seems that Zad68 found, fairly easily, past WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussions that deemed People a reliable source. Before Zad68 had even done that, I'd mentioned that People has been consistently deemed a reliable source on that noticeboard as well. All that stated, we don't have to use the word consistent, obviously. But, per my statements above with regard to the WP:RfC, I'd prefer something about consensus being mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with adding something about the current consensus. The wording is fine, and a note with links to the current consensus at the top of the RFC is important, but it does require links. I am new to BLP sourcing concerns and cannot find specific discussions. I think Neil can go with hat he has and editors can add the current consensus when a link is provided. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

AfadsBad, NeilN will already be linking to one WP:Consensus discussion -- this one. This one is likely the biggest one at this time. I stated above why I do not feel that simply linking to it or other WP:Consensus discussions is best. That it's best to, in addition to providing links for backstory, put in the initial WP:RfC wording something along the lines of "WP:Consensus at the WP:BLP noticeboard is that People magazine is suitable for sourcing various statements in biographies of living persons." I don't feel that this is a non-neutral add-on, considering that it is contrasted by "Concerns have been raised that People does not meet the sourcing standards laid out by WP:BLP." Without the context I've proposed, the original wording seems to me to indicate a dire matter of editors having just now stumbled on to the fact that People is used in biographies of living persons and are now looking to purge it from Misplaced Pages. But I've stated enough on this matter, the whole matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see that, anything dire in Neil's statement, and it is accurate, concerns have been raised, should we say they've been raised for a long time? We would have to link to that. But the statement you suggest must be sourced to wherever it originated, and I can't find that, but someone will, and when they do, it should be added. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

My proposed wording of "WP:Consensus at the WP:BLP noticeboard is that People magazine is suitable for sourcing various statements in biographies of living persons." would be sourced to this noticeboard discussion of course. You and others who have participated in it (including John) agree that WP:Consensus from this noticeboard discussion is that People is suitable to use for biographies of living persons. As for NeilN's wording, I agree to disagree. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Lol. You mean there is no prior consensus, and everyone saying there was misrepresented the consensus? That takes the cake, unbelievable. Now I am just going to start removing it. No, I do not concede consensus, now that I have learned there never was one. I thought you all were saying there was. What bs. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

I and others in this discussion have made it clear that there is prior WP:Consensus. I even noted in my "20:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)" reply above Zad68 having looked at prior WP:Consensus from archives at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. This discussion is the latest and likely currently the biggest WP:Consensus on the matter. And even if there was no prior WP:Consensus, this latest WP:Consensus would still exist. I'm confused by your response, and do not understand the rudeness from it at all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There have been limited discussions on WP:RSN: , , . --NeilN 22:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, which, like I noted at WP:ANI, I knew that WP:Consensus would be the same in this discussion. Predicted it before coming here. There are likely more than those, NeilN, at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard...but hidden under a title that does not identify that the discussion includes discussion of People. Though you have likely already done so, I will go ahead and look through this noticeboard's archives because I remember this noticeboard deeming People suitable to use as well, before this latest WP:Consensus discussion, unless (like I stated to Zad68 above) I was confusing this noticeboard with the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A number of biographies use People magazine for sourcing various statements. Prior limited discussions on this board have held People to be generally reliable. , , However, concerns have been raised that People does not meet the sourcing standards laid out by WP:BLP. The full discussion outlining these concerns can be found here. --NeilN 23:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine, Neil. It will never be perfect, and it does not have to be. I say run with it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

That's fine, NeilN. Thanks for taking my suggestion into consideration. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC Open

Please participate: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Is_People_magazine_a_reliable_source_for_BLPs.3F --NeilN 00:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Emilie Hafner-Burton

Question that this article meets notability requirements for academics. Also, page reads like a CV. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.116.118 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it reads like a CV. The Karl Deutsch award appears to establish Notability under criteria #2"The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." It appears to be given to only one scholar a year and comes from an international academic society. Perhaps someone who is familiar with this award can speak to how prestigious it is. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I did some clean up and added some clean up tags. It need sources and the entire article is in list form. To me that's a red flag for copy vio. As far as notability she is a published author with two books and multiple peer reviewed papers. So at first glance she appears notable.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd run it by the folks at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (academics) and see what they think. It's a small group of Editors who evaluate all AfDs of academics and weigh in on whether or not the person ranks as "notable". It's a different set of criteria than that for public figures or celebrities and can't be just the expected academic publications and activities. Warning: They are pretty tough to impress! Liz 19:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Someone has been repeatedly inserting inaccurate and unsourced opinion to the section entitled 'blogging'. I've removed it twice since yesterday afternoon, and the history page shows several more insertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.185.136 (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've placed warnings and advice and offers of assistance on the talk pages for the two IP's who keep re-adding the same unsourced criticism. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Still happening, deleted it twice today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.185.136 (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've given the IP a final warning. If it happens again please ping me on my talk page. thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Uniontown Ninja

I'd appreciate a second set of eyes on an article that I'm working on in my userspace: User:GrapedApe/Uniontown Ninja. Would be published at Uniontown Ninja. Any thoughts on the BLP considerations and the ongoing legal proceedings about the suspect (who the article doesn't name) would be appreciated.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:BLPCRIME.--ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the language complies with BLPCRIME? There's no name included and the statements are as neutral as possible--GrapedApe (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Kudos on your efforts to expand the pedia but I'm not sure this is the right approach. In addition to WP:BLPCRIME the article also has WP:COATRACK issues and seems to be like a news report rather than an encyclopedic article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Slattery (poet)

• Andrew Slattery (poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wholly negative bio about a poet that was embroiled in a plagiarism controversy. Definite WP:UNDUE issues, although not quite an attack page. Should the article be moved to Andrew Slattery plagiarism controversy? §FreeRangeFrog 03:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up a bit. I'm not sure it needs to be moved though. If he is notable then it could be fleshed out to avoid undue weight. Otherwise it may be an AfD candidate per WP:BLP1E.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Jack Burkett and The IRA

• Jack Burkett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sometime ago I added this, which is an extract from his book, to his article as detail of his time managing a League of Ireland football club particularly the section which states "some of his players at St Patricks Athletic were members of the IRA. They kept guns and balaclavas in their holdalls along with their playing kit". Seems like a notable statement to me and relevant to his time as manager and is accompanied by a picture of the player himself but an IP is removing this on the grounds that it is made up for the naïve English reader to sell Burkett's book. Rather than edit war (I have already reverted several times), any views on the next step?--Egghead06 (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be worried that that implies guilt by association (cultural/social context is everything and I'm not familiar with that), and I'm not saying that was your intention of course, but wouldn't that be better off on the team's article maybe? Ultimately if it's not a significant BLP issue (or at least that's not the grounds for the objection) it might be better to treat it as a content dispute. §FreeRangeFrog 16:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

George Zimmerman

I have removed a mugshot from George Zimmerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) per WP:MUG, since he was acquitted. I see there is active discussion of this on the talk page, where I will also contribute but per the spirit of WP:BLP I figured it should be kept down until discussion is complete, at least. If anyone here wants to chime in on whether my concerns are warranted, input would be welcome. VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If the intent of WP:MUG is that mug shots should never be used when the subject was not subsequently found guilty, then WP:MUG should say "Don't use mug shots when the subject was not subsequently found guilty." It doesn't say that; it says (paraphrasing for clarity) "Don't use mug shots out of context to present the subject in a false or disparaging light." For example, if a notable actor is arrested for a minor offense but charges were subsequently dropped, I think almost anyone would agree that using the mug shot in his article would be inappropriate. In an article that is primarily about the subject's arrest and trial, however, I can't see how the mug shot could be deemed "out of context." Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that WP:MUG does not say "never use them" but I can hardly imagine a circumstance where the use of a mug shot is not disparaging. I am against its usage in this instance as the subject was acquitted.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I can see the argument for using it further down the article, in the context of a trial and acquittal. In this case I removed it from the bio infobox. VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Keithbob, there is a wonderful book called Breach of Peace: Portraits of the 1961 Mississippi Freedom Riders that treats mug shots as a badges of honor. That's one circumstance. Cullen Let's discuss it 17:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328, now I can "imagine" one possible circumstance :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Craig Newmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs an addition

Cnewmark (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC) folks, the Wikimedia folks, eg, Robert Laculus, have asked me to ask you to add the following to this page. (I'm playing by the rules) I've been named as a "nerd-in-residence" by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, seriously. That might make me officially the biggest nerd in the world. I'm still a customer service rep at craigslist

in the first citation, you need to click on Craig Newmark to see the bio citations: Cnewmark (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems the VA has given CN the title, but is this notable enough for inclusion? Thoughts anyone?

Craigslist Founder Craig Newmark is a self-described nerd, as well as a pioneer of the Web, speaker, philanthropist, and a strong advocate of the use of technology for the public good. He joins the Center for Innovation as a Nerd-in-Residence to work with us in pursuing creative ways to bolster a customer service culture and capability at VA.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with including this, I think it's certainly notable and worthy of mention in his bio. And kudos to Mr. Newmark for doing it this way. §FreeRangeFrog 23:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the religion of Asma al-Assad?

Asma al-Assad is Sunni or Alwite? .SpidErxD (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what you or anyone think she is, I have been reverting - and will continue to revert - any attempt to add a cat or religion to the infobox that does not comply with WP:BLPCAT. Thus far, nothing has.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Asma is a Sunni Muslim and Bashar is Alawite - this is well documented., , . Mogism (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

None of those sources complies with one of the requirements of BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" (bolding added). Those are all sources saying she is Sunni.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, only the Time source says that she is Sunni. The other two are careful not to say that, just that her parents were. Note that is reflected in the article text. (In other words, I'm agreeing with Bbb23 here. Given the circumstances, this is a highly controversial claim, even more so than a standard religious statement, and we must be very sure to get it right.) --GRuban (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Claimed death of Carolyn Cassady

Cassady is a Beat Generation figure, who was married to Neal Cassady and also intimate with Jack Kerouac, as well as a writer herself; she was portrayed extensively in Kerouac's writing, and also in movies about them, most recently by Kirsten Dunst in On the Road (film). So definitely someone whose death you'd expect to be reported somewhere in the news.

A claim that she died Sept. 20 was added to her article without citation, reverted by me, restored again without citation, reverted again, and then restored with a source that I'm not sure is reliable because it appears to be self-published by a non-notable figure (also added to the Deaths in 2013 page with the same source). I can find no reporting of this yet in Google News, which at least raises an eyebrow, so it seems that at best inclusion in the article may be premature. Thoughts? postdlf (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the source, a blog post, does not come close to meeting our standards to report a death, so I have removed it from the article. Cullen Let's discuss it 17:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it needs a reliable source, but in light of the fact that the blog post in question includes comments from John Allen Cassady and Jamie Cassady (her son and grandson), both saying "thank you for your comments" rather than "go away you sicko", I presume the news is true. Mogism (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If we assume the comments are from actual relatives, then yes we could assume the blog is accurate but that's too much assuming for a source to be in any way reliable.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

We've now had to remove the death claim four times; I suggest protection until this is resolved. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I expect there will be at least a local obituary in a few days. I did a search and she's been featured in local papers a number of times. Our reporting can wait until then. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've made a request for pending changes status on a temp basis, here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think blocking is the way to go for good faith edits from editors who don't likely understand our citation policies to a "T". I suggest letting the blog stand but tag it with a "Verification needed" tag for a few days. That will stop any edit reverting and allow some time for the obit to be found. If it's not found in a week or two, we can revert. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that. If she's not dead, claiming she is on the basis of a blog is the kind of thing that would quite rightly lead to a complaint from her. I agree that blocking is inappropriate for someone making a good faith effort to be helpful. Mogism (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If the blog is not a reliable source, then we absolutely cannot "let it stand" for something as serious as whether she is still living. We potentially do damage by jumping the gun without proper verification and announcing her death. We do no damage by waiting until an actual, bona fide reliable source reports her death, even if that takes additional days. And waiting for that reliable source is what policy requires in this instance. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The same blog source was just reinserted again, by yet another editor. I've protected the article because pending changes obviously isn't sufficient. postdlf (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Postdlf: the edit you reverted before protecting the page had another source saying she has died that you might have overlooked, from Beatdom Magazine. Would this count as a reliable source? Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 21:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Frankly, I had no idea about any of this discussion but apparently I am that yet another editor, ending up here when I first came across an errant post on Main Page/Errors. It's been reported in Beatdom magazine which I had added to the article but the information and the sources (one of which is Brian Hassett's blog but that doesn't mean that a blog in and of itself is necessarily unreliable) were both redacted. Hassett's post has also been repeated in full at Litkicks, which is a website with editorial oversight in the person of Levi Asher. I also just nom'ed this death to be added to the ITN/recent deaths section of the Main Page here. Thanks to Taylor for noticing that an additional source had been added in my edit. Shearonink (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like this has a reliable source now: ABC News via the AP. -- tariqabjotu 23:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

  @Postdlf: I've removed the protection now that reliable sources with the death exist (and since it looks like you're not currently online). -- tariqabjotu 23:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks, glad it's resolved now. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet another editor concurs (even though Beatdom Magazine reported it first, the matter has now been picked up by The Washington Post). Shearonink (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

So, thinking that further discussion might be good about the ITN matter, since, according to reliable sources, we have now established that this person has indeed died, I come to find out that the discussion has already been closed. I have no idea where the actual "appropriate discussion page" might be...anyone else know? Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that further discussion is needed, since the matter seems crystal clear to me. This notable 90 year old woman died. At first, all we had was mention in beatnik blogs, and blog sources are never, ever going to be considered reliable for reporting a death on Misplaced Pages. We are not in the scoop business, although others are. Within a few hours, the death was reported in reliable sources, after they had done the sort of fact checking that blogs aren't expected to do. And, as an online encyclopedia, we now summarize what the reliable sources say. What's to discuss? This is exactly as it should be. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, it is not now "as it should be". Apparently my point in my previous post has been missed so I will repeat myself in this one.

The In the News discussion was closed. The template at that discussion says to continue the discussion on the appropriate discussion page. I don't know what the appropriate discussion page might be, so I asked for some guidance here. When I just now checked the ITN/Recent death:Carolyn Cassady, I see that the (previously-closed/Do Not Reopen) discussion has now been re-opened, so my question above has been rendered somewhat moot, but the question still remains... If someone nominates an item for ITN, and the discussion is closed, then where are editors supposed to discuss the matter? It might be helpful to have the appropriate "further duscussion" venue be part of the ITN/closed template. Shearonink (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate discussion page is the talk page for the article in question, until the news item, the death in this case, is verified by reliable sources. This was also an appropriate noticeboard for discussion yesterday as attempts were being made to cite the death to unreliable sources. Now, back to ITN since that issue has been resolved. Doesn't that all make sense, Shearonink? Cullen Let's discuss it 18:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Clear as mud, I have already weighed in on the In the News/Carolyn Cassady discussion here. Glad that the appropriate discussion page was pointed out, I did not know. I think I could characterize myself as a fairly-experienced editor, the ITN template should have additional information added to it for beginners who come to Misplaced Pages full of angst about a recent news matter and then when ITN discussions have been closed they do not somehow just "know" where to continue the discussion. How are we to expect inexperienced editors to know where to go if someone like myself did not?

I hope you are not implying that my work on this issue, having added an additional source beyond Haskell's blog, the one to Beatdom Magazine, should be characterized as "attempts being made to cite the death to unreliable sources". Shearonink (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Shearonink, to this uninvolved Editor, it seems like this issue has less to do with Carolyn Cassady's death and more about ITN's decision to close the discussion. If this is the case, the discussion shouldn't be moved to Cassady's Talk Page and should happen at ITN. Liz 18:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

U. R. Ananthamurthy

• U. R. Ananthamurthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Repeated vandalism due to the subject having expressed unpopular political views recently. Vandalised material being shared on social networks in a viral manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.4 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Not enough disruption yet to merit protection. If it gets too bad then WP:RFPP is the solution. I'll be watching it. §FreeRangeFrog 23:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned that a sentence in this biography is in contravention of several wikipedia guidelines, and that a stalemate has been reached in resolving the issue, as can be seen in the talk section.WP:Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Atzmon_.22hates_Judaism.22.

The sentence reads:

""Atzmon has defined himself variously as a "secular Jew", a "proud self-hating Jew", an "ex-Jew""a Jew who hates Judaism" and "a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian."""

As the claim is that Atzmon has defined himself in these ways, one should expect that the sources provided will back the claims:

With regard to the claim that Atzmon has defined himself as a secular Jew, the passage from which the claim is extracted appears to be:

"He agrees, however that he has, in effect renounced his Jewish identity, although, he adds, he grew up in a secular Jewish environment: "So I'm probably very loud and rude at times. You can take the Jew out of Israel but you cannot take Israel out of the Jew."

In effect the claim is wrong because Atzmon stresses that he has renounced his Jewish identity despite growing up in a secular Jewish environment. The source does not back the claim.

More worrying is the claim that "Atzmon has defined himself as a "a Jew who hates Judaism".

This claim is taken from an hostile article in Ynet, published by Yediot Aharnot - which is described thus in it's Misplaced Pages article WP:Yedioth Ahronoth: " It is published in tabloid format, and according to one author, its marketing strategy emphasizes "drama and human interest over sophisticated analysis."

BLP guidelines note: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism"

Furthermore, when the article was published Atzmon immediately disputed the claim, writing <ref: The article in English contains some gross mistranslations and misquotes. It seems as if Yediot's writer failed to translate 'self hatred' into Hebrew. He has managed to come up with with some very creative ideas, such as ‘a Jew who hates Judaism’, and ‘Jew Hater.’ - the article fails to acknowledge that Atzmon has specifically refuted the claim - and that therefore it is bordering on weasel words to claim that he has defined himself thus.

It is also a guideline of BLP that: " an editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual, or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the possible conflict of interest."

The edit was reverted by WP:User:RolandR whose own page makes it clear that he and Atzmon are rivals - see the pink box headed ""Reliable sources: where he quotes Atzmon thus:

"One may be surprised to discover that chief amongst ‘Misplaced Pages Jews’ is alleged ‘Anti Zionist’ (RolandR)... a London based Jewish Marxist who spends most of his time peppering Misplaced Pages entries with Judeo-centric context." Gilad Atzmon, 20 August 2010

BLP guidelines note that: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." and that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material."

The whole sentence is in need of rewriting in order to ensure that the claim that Atzmon has defined himself is backed by clear and undsiputed evidence that Atzmon has indeed defined himself thus.(Roy Bard (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC))

There are a number of points in dispute here. The easy one first: Yedioth Ahronoth is an eminently reliable source. It is Israel's most widely read paper, and although tabloid in format, its content is not in the least comparable to the gutter-press tabloids prevalent in Britain and the US. The paper must be cited in several hundred Misplaced Pages articles, and I would strenuously oppose any attempt to disqualify any content solely on the basis that YA was the source.

Secondly, this dispute appears to be about translation, not content. This was an interview in Hebrew of an Israeli musician, by an Israeli journalist, appearing in a Hebrew-language newspaper. In the article talk page, I have linked to and cited the original text. Atzmon has made no objection to the Hebrew original of this interview, only to the English translation. Any other Hebrew-speaking editor can easily refer to the original, and see that the correct English translation is indeed "a Jew who hates Judaism", not "a self-hating Jew" (for which there is a widely-used and well-known Hebrew equivalent). So the complaint itself would appear to lack weight: this is an accurate English translation of an unchallenged Hebrew original.

Roy Bard then proceeds to insinuate that I should be disqualified from making such edits, since I am a "rival" of Atzmon. What he neglects to report, however, is that he is himself a close ally of Atzmon, publishing articles on his website and collaborating with him on a blog. He has also attacked me, while defending Atzmon, on several sites. So his strictures apply at least as much to himself as they do to me.

In sum, this is an invalid claim of unreliability, made by a person closely allied to the subject and publicly hostile to me. The claim should not be accepted, and the well-sourced edit should be allowed to remain. RolandR (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the article is distorted by claiming as fact that Atzmon self-defines as a "Jew who hates Judaism", when he has issued a specific denial that he said those words: - I don't know how it has been established that "This was an interview in Hebrew of an Israeli musician, by an Israeli journalist, appearing in a Hebrew-language newspaper" but Atzmon clearly states that it is a mistranslation - noting "The article in English contains some gross mistranslations and misquotes. It seems as if Yediot's writer failed to translate 'self hatred' into Hebrew. He has managed to come up with with some very creative ideas, such as ‘a Jew who hates Judaism’, and ‘Jew Hater.’", "Clear mistranslation here. the reference is to 'self hatred'. accordingly Jesus was a 'self hater'. Instead of "Asked why he hates Jews" it should be "Asked why is he a self-hater'. it should read "Jesus was a self hater, and so were Spinoza and Marx." His comments are copnsistent with statement he has made elsewhere regarding Spinoza, Jesus and Marx eg: "Yet, it is hardly surprising that intelligent and creative assimilated Jews indulge in self-hatred. History teaches us that the most universally inspiring Jews, I mean, those who contributed something to humanity rather than merely to their own people or even just themselves, were motivated by some form of self hate. The first names that come to mind are Christ, Spinoza and Marx." , “When you try to think of the biggest humanists ever, Spinoza Marx and Christ were basically proud self-hating Jews also.” . The only source for the claim is that article, and the fact that it appears on wikipedia as fact that he defines himself thus is wrong.

WP:User:RolandR states: "What he neglects to report, however, is that he is himself a close ally of Atzmon, publishing articles on his website and collaborating with him on a blog. He has also attacked me, while defending Atzmon, on several sites. So his strictures apply at least as much to himself as they do to me." - however what strikes me is that I am asking for a contested distortion of Atzmon's views to be edited out. According to the guidelines is ""The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material." and furthermore to avoid a conflict of interest (and there clearly is one here) "an editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual, or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the possible conflict of interest." The meaning of "should not edit" seems to me to be unambiguous. I personally became aware of the problem when I received a tweet which stated " Atzmon "hates Judaism", do you as well? Yes or no is fine" - It was through trying to verify the source of that, that I discovered the claim on Misplaced Pages. I do not agree with everything that Atzmon says, but I do believe that he should be allowed to explore his ideas, and I am opposed to the campaign run by a group of which RolandR is a key member, to silence/censor him. It is no small irony that a key opponent of Atzmon is editing an article on Atzmon, which distorts Atzmon's views whilst claiming to be presenting Atzmon as self-defined by Atzmon, and which fails to acknowledge that there is a refutation of the attributed words in Atzmon's own words, on his site..

I am clear that we cannot resolve this between us - it needs other editors who do not have a conflict of interest to examine the source and the evidence and to decide whether: (1)the case that Atzmon has defined himself as a "Jew who hates Judaism" is made, and should be allowed to stand without any reference to his own words which dispute that definition, (2) and further whether that claim is important enough to be included in a BLP, bearing in mind that it can be used against Atzmon, (3)and whether or not an avowed rival of Atzmon should or should not be editing a BLP of their rival.(92.24.173.188 (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC) (edited for clarity (92.24.173.188 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC))) Further edits made to typos and I have logged in as I realsied that I hadn't been logged in before (Roy Bard (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC))

Response

Some points in response:

• RolandR has taken the translation from a WP:RS, and has independently confirmed the translation as accurate. As such it should stand, along with Atzmon's dispute.
• The disputed word: ]
• Atzmon is known for his silent, retroactive edits when he has said something unsupportably anti-Jewish on his site and is caught out. It seems likely that this translation dispute is his attempt to do something similar, having once again been caught out. If you are familiar with Atzmon's tendency to aim for the intentionally outrageous anti-Jewish attack, including recently a winking flirtation with Holocaust denial, the WP:RS translation does not seem at all out of character. We are after all talking about someone whom even his best-known blurber, John Mearsheimer, happily concedes is "a self-hating Jew."
• It should be noted that Roy Bard is a WP:SPA with easily discoverable WP:COI problems on this topic of at least the scale of that of which he accuses RolandR. It's not unusual in the late stages of a career arc like Atzmon's that the last handful of loyalists are the most dogged.

Frizzmaz (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"See you on the streets"

It is true I am not a Wikipedian, I am far too anarchic for that - there's so many rules and side alleys in this wikipedia system that it might actually be worse than Westminster (Imho)BUT if Misplaced Pages is about NPOV and all those other VIP acronynms - then the rules seem clear enough - onus on the one editing IN to provide burden of proof, who should not be an avowed rival of the subject. I am not editing in, but I am concerned that wikipedia presents as fact that Atzmon is a "Jew against Judaism" , in fact claims he defines himself thus, when it is blatantly clear that Atzmon has gone to great pains to say exactly the opposite. And so despite all the rules and the NPOV ,Misplaced Pages by allowing this sentence to stand, allows itself to become a tool in the dispute and damned be the truth. This is why I think direct action gets the goods.....- I am not really willing to spend hours of my life doing it your way when you disrespect the truth so much.(Roy Bard (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC))

'I am not really willing to spend hours of my life doing it your way when you disrespect the truth so much.' — A reasonably accurate paraphrase of what most said to you when leaving Indymedia it seems. But that is a topic for another day. Frizzmaz (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

many BLPs

The claim is made that, notwithstanding prior BLP/N discussions in the past and prior RS/N discussions in the past, that any source published in a tabloid format is a "tabloid" and its use is automatically verboten on any BLP whatsoever, and to that end a great many BLPs have had such sources (apparently chosen selectively - as most British newspapers are published in a tabloid format as opposed to traditional broadsheet) excised with strong comments that such sources are forbidden. Does a tabloid format automatically bar a source from being used on Misplaced Pages? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

See my comment above, which relates to this. RolandR (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSOURCES says: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." There are an extremely limited number of facts for which a true tabloid can be used as the sole source. However, there is currently an ongoing discussion here about People and what constitutes a "true tabloid". You might want read the comments there to get a better idea of the debate. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 16:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I stated in the #Proposed wording for RFC section regarding People: "As the Tabloid (newspaper format) article points out, tabloid format does not equal 'tabloid.' Many valid newspapers use that format." Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have previously opined on the absurd claim that People magazine is a "tabloid." I further tend to abide by prior RS/N and BLP/N discussions on the proposed banning of some specific newspapers and media sources - where such bans have never been approved for the Daily Mail etc. Where such decisions are clear in the past, they ought not be lightly disrupted, IMO. My positions on BLP are, I suggest, quite strong and evident to anyone examining my posts thereon. As I understand it, a huge number of British newspapers are in tabloid or Berliner format rather than broadsheet. Collect (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Collect, 'tabloid' refers to the style of journalism, not the page format... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as shown in his 18:01 reply, Collect knows that. But the editor he's been in dispute with about it (John) doesn't seem to know that. Or that editor is rather ignoring the fact that "tabloid format" doesn't always equal "tabloid." Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted an Editor who excised content he thought was unacceptable because of its tabloidy-like source. He re-reverted me and said he did it "in an admin capacity" and I should go find better sources for the article (putting the burden on me). I thought it was B-R-D, not B-R-R-D. It's the person who has been reverted who is tasked with discussing the validity of their edit. At least that's how I thought it was supposed to work. Liz 19:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that? I don't think reverting good faith edits about disputed sourcing is "an admin capacity" thing for admins to do. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

People throw that word around and have no idea what it means. I've seen the Village Voice frequently referred to as a tabloid and thus ineligible to use as a source, until I remind editors that it has three Pulitzers. Gamaliel (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It all depends upon what is being sourced, and how People came about that information.Martin451 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Langan

Christopher Langan An editor has inserted some speculative and contentious material into the article and talk page. I have reverted the article (again) and was hoping that someone could come in and post a notice that the article is being monitored, as well as encourage sensitivity and adherence to Misplaced Pages's policies regarding living persons. NightSky (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

NightSky, you might want to go to Misplaced Pages:RPP and make your argument that the page should be protected. There should be evidence that it is the target of vandalism. If this is a content dispute between two Editors, you should talk it out on the Talk Page. Liz 19:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any need for PP it's just a content dispute between two editors about some off topic content. I did some clean up there and gave my 2 cents on the talk page to break the deadlock. It's also on my watchlist (if I and when I check my watchlist).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Louisville teen sexual assault case

The names of the two 16-year-olds convicted in this case have been suppressed by the Kentucky court. An IP has just inserted them into the article. Does en.Misplaced Pages have a policy or normal practice when it comes to identifying juvenile offenders in general, or in cases where the name has been suppressed by a court order in particular? With some exceptions, news sources don't seem to be reporting the names, though they're all over the net, and the victim tweeted them. I've reverted the edit for now, as a precaution. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

For those coming fresh to this discussion: It appears from comments below that in Kentucky it is routine for the names of juvenile offenders to be protected from publication by law. The suppression by the court I refer to was an order for the victim not to mention their names. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

More like protected from release. Once the media finds out the name, its another matter entirely. Monty₈₄₅ 23:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That is curious. The victim's name is public but those convicted of sexual assault's identities and privacy are protected? Strange court decision. Liz 18:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The names of the assailants are key to the article. If the assault is newsworthy/worth of a Misplaced Pages article it is because the victim was brave enough to out herself to name the assailants, (redacted). If you do not know of a specific rule the names violate then they should not be suppressed. Save that for someone that is aware of a specific rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.72.34 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have multiple reliable sources that specifically name the subjects then you may insert their names into the article. Until then, no. §FreeRangeFrog 18:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

How valid is the word of the victim? She identified them...and they were convicted of assaulting her, so her identification was seen as valid by the courts. Liz 19:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The victim is a primary source, and therefore whatever she says about the perpetrators is not considered acceptable for verifiability purposes. Coverage about what she says may be, but it depends on the source and whether or not the material would violate WP:BLP in some way. §FreeRangeFrog 20:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I knew the word of the victim would be rejected. Secondly, I understood that primary sources aren't forbidden, they are just not preferred sources. Liz 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It is more than a question of sources. I raised this here because it is a BLP issue. While a BLP issue is being discussed, we leave the information in question out of the article until consensus forms. I've just read the BLP policy again.

• WP:BLPNAME says, "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."
• Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content says, "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first..." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that's what the policy says. There are cases where the names of convicted perpetrators of a crime have been widely disseminated by the media, at which point we normally allow that information to be added to the relevant article (e.g., Murder of James Bulger). My point is that this is more a WP:V issue than anything else - if the suspects have been named (and it seems they have), has that been reported by multiple, reliable sources? If not then we should not include them in the article, period. §FreeRangeFrog 20:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The article is not about the victim, the article is about the sexual assault, the crime. I think omitting the names of the criminals is a "significant loss of context". If this was a shooting and not a sexual assault, there would be no question that the criminals names should be included in an article about the crime.

The question to me is not whether it should be included but a) are there reliable sources for this information and b) does this state court's gag order cover the multinational Misplaced Pages. Liz 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I just read the original Tweet that is circulating about this and apparently, the gag order covers the victim, not other people. So while there are other concerns, that is not an issue with publishing their names on WP. Liz 20:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two different issues: (a) the legal one (and yes, Misplaced Pages is bound by US law - individuals are also bound by whatever laws apply to them individually, depending on their location), and (b) the WP:BLP policy one. Even if we can legally name the individuals, we can chose not to do so - and there is certainly a case to be made that we shouldn't name minors in such circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I'm discovering this whole business about the victim Tweeting the names of her rapists occurred in July 2012 so I'm surprised it wasn't discussed last summer. Second, AndyTheGrump, as I said, would you still think WP should protect a minor's identity if they had been convicted of a shooting?

Reading the comments from the boys' lawyer after the victim mentioned their names last summer just makes me sick. He claimed that she, the victim of their assault, "had ruined their lives" but "somehow, they will overcome these obstacles." What gall! Here's a tip for him: His clients wouldn't have these obstacles if they hadn't assaulted a woman and shared photographs of the assualt. Liz 21:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We must obey the law. This is not optional. As for what we should do, we have policies - one of which is that we protect the privacy of individuals. As to whether that policy applies here, I'm open to persuasion if it can be shown that the individuals have been named in mainstream media. And no, irrelevant crap from their lawyers isn't, um, relevant... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my comments in this thread, the gag order was issued to the victim. Plenty of other people are talking about it. So, the "law" isn't an issue. WP:Crime victims and perpetrators would seem to apply here. As for protecting "the privacy of the individual", that concern doesn't seem extended to the victim, just to those who were convicted of assaulting her and distributing photos of the assault. #Ironic Liz 22:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The law is an issue here until we have evidence that it isn't. And no, there was no 'gagging order' issued to the victim specifically - "juvenile proceedings in Kentucky are confidential". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If the Misplaced Pages article is not naming the assailants because of their age then the Misplaced Pages article should not name the victim either. This article should be named "Sexual assault of " On the other hand, if the issue is sources for content in the article, the article references the victim's tweets, and the victim's tweets have been reported nationally. The reason this sexual assault has national attention is the tweets, but Misplaced Pages does not even contain the content of the tweets. Which, as mentioned, have been published nationally. See: <-REDACTED - if this is added again, I will call for the person responsible to be blocked for editing - this is NOT a reliable source for such matters -> People ask for sources for content to be added to the article, but then redact the sources when they are provided? Glamour and Cosmopolitan are "NOT" reliable sources? Since when? As a guy I can see why women say Misplaced Pages has a women problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.72.34 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

To the scope of Judge McDonald's "gag" order and applicability to Misplaced Pages, I have been looking for it but this<http://www.juryverdicts.net/SavannahDietrichJuvenileFilesPartThree.pdf> is as close as I have gotten (a memorandum filing with the Court requesting a hearing on her contempt charge). Since I cannot be 100% sure of its authenticity, this is not a source for publication, merely to inform the editors discussing this issue here. Dwpaul (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup - we certainly can't rely on primary-source documents like that to determine the legal position. And until that is clear, any further discussion as to what WP:BLP policy allows is rather pointless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Savannah Dietrich outs her rapists article indicates that the gag order was placed on the victim, not to the media or the general public. Liz 22:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It indicates nothing of the sort. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the memo filing linked above, the judge refused to lift the "gag order" (in response to a petition by both the local paper and Ms. Dietrich) on the basis that no such order was ever imposed. See p. 32 of the PDF. Dwpaul (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does - because there never was any need for a specific order - as it goes on to say "all juvenile court records of any nature... shall be deemed confidential...". And until someone can show that this doesn't apply to Misplaced Pages, we have to assume it does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK. Kentucky courts have no jurisdiction in Florida (where the servers are, IIRC). See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878). I can go through all sorts of other reasons too. Was Misplaced Pages served with an order of the court? If not, no contempt or other violation. Finally, has anyone even seen the purported gag order? The court records may be confidential, but nothing in Kentucky law stated that the facts of the assault, the identities of the assailants, etc., were protected. If there are sufficient sources, such as , , , and . You've got two from local media, and two from nationally circulated magazines. GregJackP Boomer! 22:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Both Glamour and Cosmopolitan have provided the full quotes of Savannah Dietrich's tweets, which are what make this crime newsworthy, including the names of the assailants. I would be happy to provide the Glamour and Cosmopolitan sources, but someone keeps redacting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.72.34 (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hold on a second. I think the burden is on the one arguing a law prohibits us form doing X to show that the law does actually prohibit us from doing that. A vague reference to confidentiality rules, or a potential gag order against one person, definitely falls short in that regard. Generally, such laws at most apply to those who had special access to the pertinent information. Once it gets out, the only recourse is to find out who let it out, not go after republishes. Until someone can explain what law our inclusion of the names would break, as far as I'm concerned, we should get back to discussing the information in light of Misplaced Pages policy and editorial judgement. Monty₈₄₅ 22:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

There never was "a potential gag order against one person" - it is routine for the names of juvenile offenders to be protected by law, and it was those laws that were under consideration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It is perhaps routine for court personnel and the lawyers involved to be subject to confidentiality rules. It is extremely rare for a law to purport to limit the publication of information acquired by a third party, such as a newspaper, or Misplaced Pages. Monty₈₄₅ 22:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We can't rely on what one Editor believes is "routine", especially when evidence is shown to the contrary. Liz 02:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream media WDRB link with attacker's names NE Ent 23:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Another report stating that the court released the files to the public, here, after the controversy began. GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Huffington Post have published the names, too. In many civilised societies, we don't publish the names of juvenile offenders for ethical reasons. Because we accept that developing juveniles are more susceptible to bad influences and more likely to make moral errors, and that people usually improve with age, we don't think their adolescent misdeeds should follow them into adulthood. I agree with this policy, and don't think, as a rule, that we should be publishing the names of juvenile offenders regardless of the local legal situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Both the rapists and the victim were 16 years old. I have a problem with immortalizing the names of any of them on Misplaced Pages. The victim doesn't apparently qualify for Category:Rape victims even regardless of her age, so I support striking all their names from the Misplaced Pages article. Some idiotic jurisdiction in Outer Mongolia may insist on publicizing all names of rape victims, but that doesn't mean we have to do that. I don't see any indication that the victim wants to be publicly known as a rape victim for the rest of her life. If wikipedia were in the business of punshment, then I could support using the attackers' names, but do we want Misplaced Pages to be in the business of punishing teenagers? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages only recognizes US Federal law and Florida state law as having jurisdiction over its content. (Though, Kentucky does have jurisdiction over the behavior of editors in Kentucky). This same debate regularly comes up with Canadian minors involved with crime, in that they have the same censorship laws on names of minors. And some Canadian will now and then trie to enforce it on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages does not engage in censorship becasue of arguments like this: "Because of such-and-such law, Misplaced Pages must do so-and-so".

The two minors convicted of the crime have no protection from publication of their names on Misplaced Pages as long as it is properly sourced. Also, we do not engage in censorship based on how it makes editors feel. Now, WP:AVOIDVICTIM may apply to the victim, however, as far as I can tell, she broke anonymity herself which means we publish her name, even if we the editors have "a problem with immortalizing the names". If you feel this policy wrong, the proper venue would be to take it up with Wikilegal. Trying to achieve it through consensus here would not stand, even if achieve. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand Misplaced Pages policy, and the role of editorial judgment. We are under no obligation to republish everything about this case that has already been published elsewhere. For example, we may choose to state that the victim's vagina was only penetrated digitally, and not by anything else such as a penis. But we don't have to say that. We may choose to say that the prosecutor went to the same high school as the attackers. But we don't have to say that. Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy, so we have considerable discretion, and perhaps even a duty to omit stuff that we are legally allowed to include.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

How exactly am I the one misunderstanding Misplaced Pages policy when consensus has been reach multiple times on the inclusion of names of minors based on the same policy? (See Amanda Knox Elizabeth Smart or any number of young victims of notable sexual assaults). As for understanding Misplaced Pages policy, isn't your argument a bit of a WP:Other stuff exists argument? Given that you are comparing vaginal penetration facts to given names. Using given names has a clear and undeniable search and find advantage for articles. Including facts about vaginal penetration would need their own valid reason for inclusion, but would not be censured if such a reason was present. You're the one arguing against the grain of past consensus on this. If you have an argument why this case is different, let's hear it, otherwise if you are against the inclusion policy in general, this isn't the place to seek consensus on that Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Knox was an adult (not a child) when she allegedly committed murder, and you're referencing other Misplaced Pages articles, not me. The present article is about an incident, not a person, so I don't see a need to name names of children. This opinion is not based upon similarities across the project, and I don't know which side of the argument would be assisted if we took into account similarities across the project.

In this case, it's important to look at why the names became public in the first place. What happened is that the judge told everyone that Kentucky law requires confidentiality. The victim got pissed off at the leniency of the judge, and therefore broke the confidentiality in a successful attempt to get harsher treatment of her attackers by the court. Confidentiality was not waived because anyone involved wanted more notoriety.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Per a comment above by Anthonyhcole, "While a BLP issue is being discussed, we leave the information in question out of the article until consensus forms." Accordingly, I have moved the article to "Louisville teen sexual assault case".Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The move was inappropriate, there is clear consensus to include the victim's name (who released it herself) and the rapists' names (which were covered by multiple reliable sources). Please revert it instead of re-victimizing Dietrich. GregJackP Boomer! 11:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Re-victimizing Dietrich"? That's wildly inaccurate. I suggest that people look at the facts, and wait until this BLPN discussion is completed before further jeopardizing the privacy of children.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is dead-on accurate. Savannah stated in a Courier-Journal interview how the attorney for one of the defendants tried to paint her in a bad light, mischaracterizing penetration as "touching" and generally speaking out about how she was ruining the assailant's life. She has repeatedly stated how shutting her up and covering up what happened made her regret reporting it in the first place. Re-victimizing is exactly what is happening here. GregJackP Boomer! 12:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That's absurd. What's going on here is making sure via reliable source that she's okay with being very publicly known this way as an adult. That she went public as a child, in order to obtain stiffer penalties for her attackers, does not necessarily mean that she wanted forever to remain public as an adult, even after having achieved stiffer sentences for her attackers. In any event, the point is now moot, since I found a reliable source indicating that she's okay with continuing to be a public activist on this issue as an adult.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Elizabeth Smart (mentioned above), she has a dedicated wikipedia article, and has become a famous activist and television commentator. In contrast, the victim here went public to obtain stronger sentences for her attackers, and has not become an activist or shown any desire to remain in the public eye, AFAIK. For many women, it's traumatic to go public against rapists, and it would be all the more so if Misplaced Pages increases the publicity. I would have no objection to using first names of both the child victim and the child attackers in our article, but I don't see any value in using full names, which can only diminish privacy. The attackers have definitely tried to keep their names private, most sources have respected that wish, and it would be very weird for us to exclude their full names while including the victim's. Incidentally, this essay Misplaced Pages:Youth protection is interesting: "No editor (of any age) should post personal identifying information about a self-identified child....Without other information, a first name is not considered personal identifying information."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

See below section. GregJackP Boomer! 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Break / Louisville teen sexual assault case

As an aside, we seem to have two articles on this now: Louisville teen sexual assault case and Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich. 217.36.84.105 (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, Anythingyouwant took bold action and renamed Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich to Louisville teen sexual assault case plus removed the victim's name although there was no consensus yet that this should be done. I'm not sure whether all names should be omitted or included but the editing decision should not have been made at this point in the discussion. Liz 12:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

After the page move, the name of the assault victim still appears on the page, but only in the titles of the refs. How far do we need to go? Should the name appearing in the titles be replaced with ?

Correction: Victim also still listed by name in the Infobox. Dwpaul (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is more of a mess than I thought. Time to revert and go back to the version that was being debated? Liz 12:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is time to revert. GregJackP Boomer! 12:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert due to lack of consensus on the move. Dwpaul (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep - There is no need to have the 16-year-old victim's name plastered all over this Misplaced Pages article. I stand by the page move because BLPN discussion is continuing. Since when do we include the name of a teen victim but not those of her attackers?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Note however that the change made did not have the effect of completely removing the victim's name from the article; there is more to be decided/changed. We are at a fork in the road, often the best place to go is the place from whence you came when this happens. Dwpaul (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue, Anythingyouwant, is that you went ahead with this renaming while the discussion about the page was still ongoing. No consensus had been reached on what names to include or not include. Liz 14:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it the norm at BLPN to remove controversial material which can be restored at the conclusion of discussion? There is no rush here, no deadline, to restore this stuff. For the time being, privacy concerns outweigh other concerns. Omitting the info is clearly 100% consistent with BLP, and the only issue is whether including the info is consistent with BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Since all of the preceding edits did not have the effect of removing the victim's name entirely, I carried to ultimate (if absurd) conclusion by redacting name from the titles of the cited refs. Dwpaul (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:Point, I recommend not making edits that you think are "absurd".Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think my edits are absurd; only completes the removal of the victim's name. Without this change, all of the others are superfluous since they do not have that effect. Where we are now is what's absurd. Dwpaul (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There are many things in the cited articles that are not repeated in our text, and I don't view that as absurd. I already gave an example above: we don't detail what penetrated the victim, whereas the cited sources do detail it. Analogously, just because the cited sources use her name doesn't mean we have to. I do think that you've edited the BLP contrary to WP:Point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

By reproducing the name in the titles of the refs, we are publishing her name. Absurdity would be removing her name also from the URLs (breaking them, of course), but not having done so, her name still appears, just not in the visible text. I am only taking your action boldly to the logical extreme, not being POINTy. Dwpaul (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, there was also no rush to remove the names. This crime occurred in 2011 and the court verdict was in 2012. This article wasn't just created this week, it has been on Misplaced Pages since January 2013. Liz 15:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My edit was motivated by the comment above by Anthonyhcole, "While a BLP issue is being discussed, we leave the information in question out of the article until consensus forms".Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) I do not see a problem with including the name in the titles of footnoted articles. That is vastly less weight than plastering the name all over the article. Here is some pertinent policy:

If scholarly articles use the name, that's more relevant for us.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Then please revert me, if you think it's necessary to conform with policy. I was only completing the work you started, which in my mind was incomplete. Dwpaul (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, lets look at sources (keeping in mind that the victim published her own name, and is now 18):

• Mildenhall, Maren (2013). "Soft-Power Triangulation for the Reclamation of a Prodigal Free Press". BYU Prelaw Review. 27: 91–92. Retrieved 23 September 2013., names the victim, peer-reviewed.
• Krein, Anna (2013). Night Games: Sex, Power and Sport. Black, Inc., names the victim in four places.
• Pesta, Abigail (Dec. 10, 2012). "'Thanks for Ruining My Life'". Newsweek. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help), extended article on the victim, by name.
• Barrouquere, Brett (September 14, 2012). "Savannah Dietrich Confronts Attackers While Testifying In Kentucky Courtroom". Associated Press. The Associated Press does not generally identify victims of sexual assault, but Dietrich and her parents wanted her story public.

Note the last source, where the article explicitly states that the subject of the article wanted her name to be public. You don't get to out yourself and then claim that privacy is required. GregJackP Boomer! 16:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see what purpose it serves for us to use her full name, except in the footnotes. It strikes me as WP:Undue weight. We don't say that the sexual assault consisted of fingering her vagina, and we don't say lots of other stuff. The notability of the case arises from an alleged order to the victim to be silent, and her disregarding that order in order to protest leniency to the attackers. All of that can be explained fine without putting her full name in the article title. Kids do dumb things all the time, but we needn't take the attitude that they therefore deserve whatever they get.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that, since the victim has outed - and continues to out - herself, it is reasonable for us to use her name (See below). The juvenile offenders did not out themselves. I'm open to persuasion, but nothing above yet persuades me that it would be reasonable or ethical (and I'm not convinced it wouldn't be illegal - though that's a separate issue) for us to publish their names. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on "continues to out herself"? Outing herself as an adult could change my mind, but Google News indicates otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Not since 10 December last year, so I've struck that. You may be making sense, Anythingyouwant. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The most important thing about the case is specifically that the victim outed herself and her attackers. That's what all the coverage is about. It's not that a teen was raped in Louisville - though tragic, I suspect a dozen, if not a hundred, teens are raped in Louisville every year. That makes news, but not international news. It also makes the current title, Louisville teen sexual assault case, meangingless and ridiculous - no one refers to it by that name. I think that we need to follow the sources here; the main source is Newsweek, a highly respected news publication. It names Savanna Dietrich. It does not name the the attackers. Same for the Courier-Journal, a respected local paper. The Daily Mail, a less respected news publication, but one in another country, follows that pattern. --GRuban (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice that Newsweek does not put her name in its article title. Nor does USA Today. USA Today discusses the fingering of her vagina; why do we exclude that from both the article title and the body of our article? Because it's unnecessary, perhaps? Why is it more necessary for us to include her name than her attackers'?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If the most important thing about the case was exactly how she was raped, we'd need to write that. Since it isn't, it's a matter of editorial judgment. Here, the most important thing is that she outed herself, she published her name, she gave interviews giving her name. It's possible to write a story without mentioning exactly how she was raped. It's not possible to write a story without giving her name. Oh, here's a quote from the USA Today story you linked to, explaining the line that all the sources follow. "Dietrich and her parents gave permission to use her name. While the assailants' names have been made public in court records, The Courier-Journal has not identified them." If your objection is that Dietrich was a minor, so didn't have the right to release her name, here are her legal guardians backing that up. --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The controversy that erupted was not about her outing herself, but rather her outing her assailants. In any event, I have no objection to having her name appear in the footnoted article titles. It's mainly a matter of WP:Undue weight. Putting her name in the article title seems grossly excessive to me. Additionally, the reason she went public was very limited: to protest leniency. I see no indication that she wants to remain famous as a child victim of sexual assault.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Our sources have demonstrated that it's perfectly possible to write about the case without naming the assailants, and have given the reasons why they name the subject and not the assailants. As to your second point, I don't think anyone has ever gotten up in the morning and decided - "I think I want to be famous as a victim of sexual assault". (Well, with the possible exception of Tawana Brawley. Let's just say that none of the actual victims we write about are there by choice.) However it's clear that she - and her parents, since the being-a-minor issue concerns you - have weighed the price of the fame or notoriety against their goals, and have decided it worthwhile. They have decided there is no way to achieve their goals without her name being known. Therefore, it's not for us to overrule them in a misguided attempt to protect them. We might make that decision for other reasons, but not for the "don't harm the subject" reasoning of WP:BLP. The subject has made the decision, and the sources we use have followed it. We might decide we aren't going to write about the case at all; but we can't write about the case without giving her name. "Louisville teen" just doesn't suffice.--GRuban (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This Courier-Journal article specifically states: "Dietrich has already consented to being named and having her case opened."Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No one disputes that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds pretty definitive to me. Suppose it depends on whether she was an adult when she did so. Dwpaul (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

She wasn't. But her parents agreed to it, as linked to above. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A basic principle to be considered here is that you can't un-famous yourself. You can sue if someone libels you (subject to the standards that apply to those who are famous), but you can't remove yourself from the corpus of public visibility just because you accomplished your goal in becoming known. Dwpaul (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Dietrich did not "out" herself, she publicly came out as a sexual assault survivor. She's done interviews on Nightline, CNN and other TV shows and has a quite public facebook page and twitter account. Naming the article some euphemistic "Louisville assault" nonsense isn't respectful of her decision, it's condescending; substituting our judgement for that of her / her parents. Article show be restored to prior name and her name resinserted into the text. NE Ent 03:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

She turned 18 in January, and subsequently gave a number of interviews, supported legislation that would prohibit gag orders on victims, etc. Telling her that Misplaced Pages knows "better" than her is just re-victimizing her, as I stated above. She has publicly stated that if she knew she was going to be silenced, she would not have reported the sexual assault. I'm also sure that the relative wealth plays into this article, both rapists come from wealthy families (each in a home of over $600K), private school, lacrosse players, etc. We certainly can't report what reliable sources have already reported - why it might affect which Ivy League school they can go to, and effect their chances to medical school! GregJackP Boomer! 11:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Public testimony in March 2013

I found a news article behind a pay wall about her testifying publicly in March before the Kentucky legislature. I have added this to the Misplaced Pages article. Therefore, since she has very publicly (and courageously) indicated being an activist now as an adult, rather than someone who expects her privacy back, I favor more prominently including her full name in the Misplaced Pages article. That does not extend to the males who were minors at the time of the attack.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So ... ? As you were the one who removed the name, and moved the article, and the only one defending it, are you going to undo your actions? Or does someone else have to do it? --GRuban (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do it, either now or when the BLPN discussion is resolved. I absolutely stand by my actions, because no one produced any evidence that --- as an adult --- she was willing to remain publicly connected with this incident, rather than wanting to recover her privacy..Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Since a number of us have castigated Anythingyouwant for performing the page move without consensus, we should probably wait until we have re/gained consensus on moving it back before the move is undone. The challenge will be sorting out the multiple ongoing discussions here to achieve consensus. RfC anyone? Dwpaul (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Anythingyouwant. Dwpaul: Not RfC, RfM, rather, and even that only because we need an admin to move the page back over the redirect. We've got unanimity, you can't get a better consensus than that, even the original mover has changed his mind. Since we need an admin to move it back over the redirect, so I'm requesting it at Talk:Louisville teen sexual assault case#Requested move 24 September 2013, and referring back to this discussion. The "should the article name the assailants" issue is ongoing, but shouldn't affect the article being moved back to the stable name. --GRuban (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, defer to your better knowledge of the appropriate procedure in this situation. Dwpaul (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Louisville case: Should the article name the juvenile offenders?

Just to separate it from the victim naming issue. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, well cited public knowledge. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, well cited knowledge and information. GregJackP Boomer! 21:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources that give that knowledge and information? The main newspaper stories about the case seem to work hard not to. --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This Daily Beast article states: "The court records were unsealed at the request of Dietrich’s team" (pg 3).--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Four sources, all mentioning the offenders' names, including two that are national magazines. , , , and . GregJackP Boomer! 21:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, consistent with other Misplaced Pages articles on youth crime, e.g. Steubenville High School rape case and Columbine High School massacre. 67.162.72.34 (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• No. None of the children juvenile offenders involved in the incident need to be named in the Misplaced Pages article title or in the main body of the article. We can just say that the attackers have been named by a small minority of reliable sources, and provide links in the footnotes. The reason this article was not deleted is because it was an interesting situation in which a child victim publicly named her child attackers in order to protest the leniency of the judge, and was then reprimanded for breaching confidentiality. All of that is easy enough to explain without giving WP:Undue weight to the full names of the minors involved. There's just no need, and the potential harm is great for both the victim and the attackers. I am assuming that we could name them all. Could is not the same as should.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

By my math, none of the involved parties are "Children" anymore.Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Most legislatures have made provisions for disposing of a juvenile's legal or social record.". The idea is that people should have a second chance, and the mistakes they made, the mishaps, the misfortunes of childhood should not necessarily haunt them for the rest of their lives.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We are not in the business of rehabilitation, we are in the encyclopedia business. We report what reliable sources report. The story is also unique in the connection between the prosecutor and the school, and the Z. family and the school. One of the families was more concerned about a possible scholarship than the victim in this case, which is why the names of the rapists were published. GregJackP Boomer! 23:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We are in the business of protecting peoples's privacy, per WP:BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not what WP:BLP says. It does say, however, that we should avoid prolonging, or in this case, re-victimizing the victim. GregJackP Boomer! 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"Biographies of living persons ('BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy".Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• No. The individuals involved in the case were juveniles at the time of the incident, relatively unknown and certainly not public figures. We can still convey 99% of the relevant and pertinent information for encyclopedic coverage without having to name them outright in the body of the article. As another editor suggested, we can say that the defendants were named in some reliable sources and provide links in the footnotes for those readers who wish to pursue their identities. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• No. Unlike, apparently, the assault victim, neither of the boys involved have voluntarily given up their right to anonymity under the Kentucky juvenile statutes. Additionally, their actions, while the reason for the case, are not the reason for its notability. The record here will get along just fine without their names, which are available in the refs if anyone cares to look for them. Not so the name of the victim and the publicity they generated, which I think we have agreed is key to the existence of the article here in the first place. Dwpaul (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources indicate that Kentucky law gives criminals under 18 a right to anonymity. The sources only refer to Kentucky law at least sometimes keeping court records sealed. That is a significant difference. I would argue that the assailants choose not to be anonymous by committing sexual assault, while the victim was forced out of anonymity to obtain justice.67.162.72.34 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

KRS 610.340(1)(a), 610.320(3) and 610.070 make all "juvenile court records of any nature" confidential except to those engaged in the case unless a court orders otherwise. See page 33 in this PDF (not suitable for citation). This is what I meant by right to anonymity. Perhaps confidentiality is a more accurate word, but in this case confidentiality would imply anonymity. Dwpaul (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The court unsealed their names, this law doesn't apply. If they wanted to remain anonymous, they shouldn't have filmed themselves raping a girl and then shared said footage. They lost anonymity when they shared the footage. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• No until they are actually convicted and sentenced. If they are proven innocent, including the names is harmful, but if the court convicts them, that's a different story. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

They've been convicted. They plead guilty. They were children at the time of the assault. Should we publish their names? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, at the web site of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press the attackers' names are redacted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes -- not being in Kentucky, I don't give a fig for Kentucky law or Kentucky judges, and Misplaced Pages certainly should not care about it. The idea that they were "children" derives entirely from ignorance about the peculiar American notion of childhood and can safely be set aside here. What drives me nuts about arguments like this is that most participants have no idea what sort of assumptions are going into their arguments; as a matter of (American) law the perpetrators were minors, but they certainly were not children and don't deserve special consideration as such. It's fine to follow normal Misplaced Pages conventions here in regard to RS, V, etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Legal opinion. Though I think the main issue here is an ethical one, there are also some concerns about the legal position, so I've asked for advice at the talk page of the WMF's legal liaison. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Philippe's not a lawyer. GregJackP Boomer! 13:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've asked him, as liaison, to "pass this on to somebody qualified to offer that advice." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to indicate that I have received the request and have passed it on within the Office of the General Counsel. Because I'm currently on limited availability due to travel, I'm asking James, from my team, to monitor this situation. Please note that James is not an attorney (nor am I) and that WMF's attorneys represent the Wikimedia Foundation, not the individual editors, and as such can not give specific legal advice to community members, though they can frequently discuss broader principles. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

In a way, this may have the effect of complicating things, since conventional wisdom is that once you contact your (in this case the Foundation's) attorney for advice, you are ill-advised to act until you receive it. But I think this discussion pertains specifically to naming the convicted assailants, not the victim/activist, and I assume that is the question on which we are seeking advice. Should not delay action on the question of reverting the page move and naming the latter. Dwpaul (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I've only asked for advice on publishing the names of juvenile offenders. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point, there clearly is no consensus to include the names of the juvenile offenders, so the legal question may not make any difference.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

See First amendment, and similar court case . No opinion including names or not, but it's obvious to me it's legal. (include not a lawyer yada yada disclaimer here) NE Ent 22:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your question, Anthony. I apologize, but, as a budding attorney, I must first start with the following disclaimers before addressing your question:

1. http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/ynetnews-the-protocols-of-gilad-atzmon.html
2. http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/ynetnews-the-protocols-of-gilad-atzmon.html
3. http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/12/the-poetic-side-of-self-hatred/
4. http://hurryupharry.org/2009/03/10/more-atzmon/
5. https://twitter.com/freethepeeps/status/362665639967592450

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution