• John Cornyn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The "Casino investigation" section has no sources, and therefore is a serious breach of BLP. I strongly considered deleting the entire section, but have waited for input. But if none is forthcoming, the whole section has to go. Corvus cornix 23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A brief search found this as a possible source for some of the material. The CREW item on their filing can be found here. That's obviously a primary source, but it could be used to support the fact that CREW indeed made a filing. JavaTenor 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Those sources look sufficient to me. Someone removed the section though. Can we/should we put the section back? Fieari 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Todd Goldman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Potentially libelous accusations of plagiarism from trivial unreliable sources like blogs and message boards have been repeatedly added recently. See, for example, here. [1] // Dragonfiend 08:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• 192.188.101.10 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nick Baylis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:192.188.101.10 has repeatedly written that the subject is a "total fraud". I'm going to be away for a couple weeks, please watchlist the article and block/semiprotect if he continues. // Rhobite 11:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the entry for Nadine Gordimer. Ongoing violations of BLP have been occurring there for months. In summary, the issue stems from an attack and robbery at her South African house. There has been months of argument about whether to include mention of the race of the attackers. No reliable and legitimate secondary sources have been provided establishing that the race of the attackers is notable for the subject of the entry. There is clear evidence of POV-pushing, and a general refusal to edit this BLP entry with sensitivity. I have only begun contributing to this entry today, making clear my view that no justification for including discussion of the race of the attackers has been provided, and making clear my view that this is a clear violation of BLP, NOR, and NPOV (see Talk:Nadine_Gordimer#BLP_and_notability). FNMF 05:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• BLP does not say "several legitimate and reliable sources." On the other hand, an article's subject is notable "if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself." Gordimer is notable. Nobody denies that.

• The race of the attackers is not questioned as a verified fact by either side. The material is based on reliable sources, is accurate and relevant per RS and BLP. The Sunday Times of London and Daily Telegraph are RS. It's an NPOV debate, not BLP. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Gang who robbed me should have jobs to do, says Gordimer". The Daily Telegraph (London). November 2, 2006. {{ cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= ( help)

• The entry has been blocked for a week by user Durova, who did not take a position on the dispute. However I refer others to the discussion mentioned above, at Talk:Nadine_Gordimer#BLP_and_notability, in particular my detailed explanation of the policy situation here, as well as to the explanation I gave to Durova here. It seems to me that rather than a dispute-resolution process, the clear violation of BLP occurring at this entry requires more decisive action. FNMF 08:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I further note that user Yakuman has insisted on posting the disputed material on the talk page of the entry (in a section called "Missing material"). If the material is indeed a violation of policy, then its inclusion on the talk page (as it already is numerous times) is another violation of the policy, and ought to be removed also. FNMF 08:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tracy112 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.165.2.32 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.217.102.191 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Vic Sprouse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Thank you. There has been several cases of changes to the 'Vic Sprouse' bio that includes information about alleged infidelity and information on a recent divorce. It has been removed on several occasions and continues to reappear. Can this be stopped? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by VicSprouse ( talk • contribs)

I have added the article to my watchlist. Obviously, the addition of unsourced negative claims violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. If the vandalism returns, the user in question can be blocked from editing or the article can be temporarilly protected from being edited by new users. -- BigDT 00:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• 81.96.161.100 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kris Weston (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Kris Weston, a former member (early 1990s !!!!) of the techno/ambience/experimental British act The Orb, complains that the article regarding him is full of mistaken info, sourced on faked info taken from untrustable and malicious "paparazzi"-style sites. He really doesn't want to have an entry here, though he is (or was very) notable, I think he's the right to ask such removal. He no longer want to talk to this site 'cos he feels that many mot..fuc... are here just to have fun on him. Doktor Who 16:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• He has been highly uncivil when dealing with us and has not even attempted a dialog not filled with death threats and cursing. None of the sources are from paparazzi sites, but from British print newspapers. There is no attack/negative information in any articles about him, so I really don't know what his problem is. I don't understand what specific information is contentious. Wickethewok 01:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, this story is very simple: he feels that over a dozen of ppl are deliberaterly misrepresenting him and some of his past; therefore he regards almost everyone here as a potential and actual harrasser. Anyone would behave like him. Furthermore (but this is just my opinion), I sadly realize that none took some minutes of his/her time to talk to him politely, avoiding at the same time the use of any term or sentence that may sound so "Wikipedia slang". Doktor Who 02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Dana White (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm not familiar with the subject of this article, but there appears to be a fair amount of POV-pushing going on, especially by User:Theword2. Is this just garden-variety vandalism, or is there something else that needs to be dealt with here? JavaTenor 04:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be very notable either, at least from what we are given in the article. Steve Dufour 04:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would think being president of a notable organization such as the Ultimate Fighting Championship would be sufficient claim to notability, and there seems to be plenty of news coverage. JavaTenor 05:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please put some in the article. :-) Steve Dufour 14:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Dobie Center (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 72.179.46.43 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.113.101.213 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Although it isn't a biography, I believe this attribution of blame is a violation of wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living persons. When I mentioned this to the editor on their talk page, they blanked their talk page and yet again undid my changes. TerraFrost 12:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right; after your warning and reversions this indeed amounts to vandalism with a WP:BLP twist. I've restored the anon's talk page and added a final warning. If the anon returns, I recommend a quick block for vandalism. AvB ÷  talk 14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy's done it again. He's reverted his warnings, yet again, as well.

He seems to be contributing from two IP addresses: 72.179.46.43 and 70.113.101.213. Not really sure how to proceed. Should I post in WP:AIV? TerraFrost 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

When a vandal has stayed away for a couple of days, it's best to add a warning on the talk page (in this case on both, assuming this is the same person). AIV only blocks while the vandalism is ongoing. You can report them straight away if/when they return to have them blocked; this is obviously becoming a nuisance. AvB ÷  talk 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this can be closed. Terrafrost, thanks for reporting this nasty BLP problem. If they return, please relist here or at WP:AIV. When in doubt, you can always ask here or feel free to post a message on my talk page. I'll keep the article on my watchlist for a while. AvB ÷  talk 21:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Glenn Greenwald (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I don't know a lot about the subject of this article; however, it has been the subject of a protracted revert war as of late over one section in particular. The article is about a fairly notable blogger, and the section in question discusses a "controversy" in the blogosphere where someone accused the subject of sockpuppetry on other blogs to support himself and his own views. The article cites 3 sources; 2 are partisan blogs, and the other is the subject's response on his blog to those allegations. My understanding of WP:BLP is that it applies very clearly to this paragraph, and explicitly disallows it in the "Reliable sources" section. The user advocating that the paragraph should stay, David Spart ( talk · contribs) has not been able to provide a reliable source (though he has claimed that the blogs cited are not, in fact, blogs, and are "very very reliable"). He has also accused a number of accounts reverting the edits reinstating the paragraph of being sockpuppets. I attempted to interject in the discussion on the talk page as (what I felt was) a neutral third party, to no avail, so I am asking for further third-party input. Is my reading of both policy and this particular situation correct? Thanks in advance. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the "sockpuppetry" section carries a negative POV and must be considered libelous. WP:BLP begs Editors to "especially" avoid potentially libelous material. -- AStanhope 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole article seems way too heated. Steve Dufour 03:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello David Spart here, the comments above are entirely shameless and mendacious in misrepresenting my position. It gives the impression that I as saying that blogs are "very very reliable" sources, when in fact the reliable sources the section are based on are Townhall.com, US News and World Report and Greenwald's own defense, which is actually the bulk of the 70 word paragraph. David Spart ( talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not my intention to misrepresent your position or attack you (by all accounts, you are an excellent editor). However, the Townhall.com source is a blog (and a partisan one at that, which WP:BLP specifically addresses). The U.S. News & World Report source is a partisan blog. I am unsure whether Greenwald's own post on his blog about the issue makes the issue salient if we have no reliable sources that cover the incident in the first place. And note that I said that I am unsure — one of the reasons I have asked for 3rd party input here. I have no objections to the text itself, if it can be sourced to a (or preferably multiple) reliable source(s), as WP:BLP explicitly requires. I am positive that your position is held in good faith and in an attempt to make the article adhere to a neutral point of view. However, at the moment, from my interpretation of the facts and BLP (which is non-negotiable, overarching policy), the section cannot remain in the article. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that some major publications and outlets publish some of their material unter the heading "blog" does not in any way impair the WP:ATT status of the material in question. It has the same editorial overdight, and legal accountabliity if for example someone were to sue.Townhall.com is one of the biggest online outlets and is owned by a major corporation. The US News and WOrld Report is a major journal. Is the Gaudian's Commentisfree not a reliable source? Are the comoment pieces in any number of newspapers not reliable simply becasue when they are put up onine they are under the title blog? Is printing on paper the Gold Standard of ATT? No, if major coorporations are putting millions of dollars on the line to disemenate contention information then that satisfies ATT. No ATT problem, no NPOV problem, no BLP problem. David Spart ( talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 05:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the editorial oversight on all 3 of the blogs sourced is nil, which is exactly why blogs aren't allowed to be cited as reliable sources per BLP. The amount of money being paid to disseminate information has no bearing on whether a source is reliable or not. I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with your position. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 14:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Outednt. You are wrong about that, for practical legal reasons. Here is the blurb about the commentisfree blog:

I can't find any staffing information for the US News and World Repost, but I asure you the same applies, as it does with Townhall.com owned by Salem Communications. If a major organisation is disseminating information through its own staff, you can sure there is editorial oversight, because anything libelous puts them at unlimited liability. There will a team of fact-checkers and a lawyer, as well as sub-editors. So, I guess we now have a question to ask the oracle. Are articles disseminated by major publication online under the title "blog" count as blogs or as reliable sources? Where do we go to get this question resolved? David Spart ( talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is something that's been bothering me for a while, too. I would suggest a simple metric. The criterion for reliability isn't whether it's a blog, per se; it's whether it has editorial oversight. The Guardian's commentisfree site clearly does. It's unclear whether US News and World Repost does and we shouldn't assume it in the absence of evidence. I would suggest excluding major-publication blogs if there is no evidence of editorial oversight, but including them if there is such evidence. However, this would require a change to WP:RS. Given that, this discussion would be better continued on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources rather than here. -- ChrisO 11:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The chances of such a policy change seem remote to me. For one thing it seems to override existing requirements regarding the source's fact-checking reputation (as derived from (other) reliable third-party sources) and replace it with an editor-dependent metric. AvB ÷  talk 22:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, personally I wouldn't care to speculate on the chances of a policy change. There might not need to be one, depending on how the current policy is interpreted. But you have a good point about the reputational issue. I've posed a few questions at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Major-publication blogs? - hopefully we might get some useful responses. -- ChrisO 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that insights from others (and certainly veteran editors monitoring the policy page) may prove useful in answering David Spart's "oracle" question and resolving this BLP problem. AvB ÷  talk 23:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Roger E. Billings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Billings is a promoter of hydrogen cars who had an article about him a couple of years ago on Time. However, he's also revered as a "prophet and patriarch" by a small breakoff sect of Mormonism located in Missouri. This sect has always been very secretive, and information about them has maily been in news articles and court documents. One member (or former member, according to her) of that sect, User:Firewriter, has been attempting to fill the article with unverifiable information about Billings that portrays him in an absurdly glowing light (i.e., he supposedly invented the PC, networking, and the hydrogen car), while ignoring the published information about his links to the religious sect. User:Firewriter works with Billings in their underground Academy, and as far as I know, may even be a relation. Her contribution amounts to creating a vanity article for her religious leader. I've attempted to limit the article to documented published sources, but she insists on adding material in violation of the BLP policy. Please help! // MotherHubbard 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Firewriter ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Treepoet ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

Also to be watched is User:Treepoet, who admits she is another member of Billings' organization. Treepoet and/or Firewriter may also have been using sockpuppets, because I've traced an anonymous IP to Missouri, where Billings' organization is headquartered. MotherHubbard 23:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting a car to run on hydrogen is not terribly hard, similar to converting to natural gas. Anyway, the article looks like it's been improved. I'll keep an eye on it too. - Will Beback · † · 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• 71.96.155.83 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.252.184.55 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.242.150.51 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.185.108.52 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Merril Hoge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An article about a somewhat unpopular ESPN NFL analyst. For some time now, this article has seen the repeated insertion (mostly by anons) of claims about Hoge's supposed "bias", "hatred", "vendetta", etc. toward Tennessee Titans quarterback Vince Young, based on his criticism of the QB in a few on-air spots. Requests for reliable sources regarding his supposed "bias" or the claim that he is "noted" for this criticism have gone unanswered. I could use some outside input on this one. Warpstar Rider 22:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Lindsay Lohan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - another user has expressed concern about the following passage: In 2006, Brandon Davis called Lindsay Lohan a "firecrotch" while Paris Hilton laughed on. The term stuck with many celebrity gossip magazines and websites, becoming a derogatory nickname and spawning parodies and the references cited to support this. I've removed one obvious copyvio YouTube link but as to the BLP/reliable sources situation, I'm not really sure what action to take. Anyone more experienced with this sort of thing care to take a look and give me their opinion? Thanks. // Kurt Shaped Box 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I could not find a discussion of the firecrotch edits on the current talk page or the last archive. Discuss an issue on the article's talk page before bringing it here. -- Gbleem 09:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - it was mentioned here... -- Kurt Shaped Box 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I could not find my original post in the archives. Ronnie Lott said in an interview with Byron Allen that he and Marcus Allen would not have graduated without cheating help from Byron Allen. Can this be posted on the Marcus Allen article  ? On the talk pages someone is saying that it cannot be because Marcus Allen has made no comment about the interview. -- Gbleem 22:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• 142.179.24.107 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.80.117.217 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.192.113.5 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fiona Forbes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had the same "trivia" items inserted into the article several times with a month or so between edits. The most recent attack seems to be over, but this needs to be watched a little more. If you can help, please do. Thank you. MECU≈ talk 20:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Don Rossignol (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Qclara ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This page should either be removed completely or altered drastically. Rossignol was recently convicted for 4 felonies in Latah County in the state of Idaho -- as well as for perjury regarding some of the content currently posted on Wikipedia. (For example, he was not an MP for 10 years.) This page is self-aggrandizing and is not remotely accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qclara ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

You will need to cite a source for this extraordinary claim. FCYTravis 06:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Martha Beck (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is thoroughly cited, but it has issues with the quality/sources of the citations, and serious issues with balance. I don't know much about the subject, and since I think the primary need is for more content to be added to the article to balance out negative viewpoints, I don't feel qualified to fix the article myself. Thanks, Mak (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The talk page shows some editors solving the problems. -- Gbleem 15:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Dzogchen Khenpo Choga Rinpoche (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - from an edit comment by 67.171.213.34 ( talk · contribs): "I have removed the slanderous comments and changes to the original page made by the poster "exposeroffakes" last night. Is there any way to prevent that kind of bizarre and hateful editing?" // Cundi 13:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you keep an eye on it and remove any vandalism promptly they will most likely give up. It that doesn't solve the problem then there are other options like semi-protection. -- Gbleem 14:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Graeme Davis (mediaevalist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Would really appreciate help from wikipedia experts. Confusion between me - Graeme Davis, a UK academic and mediaevalist, and someone else called Graeme Davis, a war gamer with an article on Wikipedia, has just lost me a job. A UK interviewer managed to structure a set of interview questions around the information he thought he had understood from wikipedia. There is a superficial similarity in aspects of the expertise of the two Graeme Davis's - but the result for me in this case has been pretty ghastly. I've just spent most of an interviewer trying to persuade a panel I'm not who they think they are talking about. I've also had an incident in the last few weeks where I've been told I've not been called for interview because the employer thought I was the other Graeme Davis, again based on Wikipedia. As an effort to minimise the damage Wikipedia is doing to me I've tried to set up an article for myself. I don't regard this as self promotion, just a means of avoiding the life-damaging effects of confusion. My peers have articles on wikipedia, and I think I really do merit an article. But some users of wikipedia have proposed the article for deletion, partly I think because I've put it forward myself and they don't like someone putting forward an article about themself, and partly because they would like to see more external references (I don't know how to set these up - I'm really not a wikipedia article writer). I could of course get a colleague to put me forward, but it seems there should be an easier solution. Can anyone help please? Can an article be structured that satisfies the usual wikipedia criteria so that I can move away from this wikipedia-promoted loss of identity? Graemedavis 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Graeme Davis

I've created a disambig page Graeme Davis. Please tell me more on the Graeme Davis talk page. -- Gbleem 09:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought you were a third Graeme Davis. I made the disambig page Graeme Davis and then found your post on the Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graeme Davis (mediaevalist). It will have to be decided there. -- Gbleem 10:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded the dab -- the problem should now be solved.-- Doc^g 10:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Donald Vance (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This entry is based almost entirely on a single, biased source. The only reference is a Dec 18 2006 NYT article which was essentially dictated by Donald Vance himself. In the article, the court of the media essentially convicts the military of wrongdoing without any proof. The supposed lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld has been seen in court, therefore there is no proof in a court of LAW. His claims are simply that; claims. Not fact.

Furthermore, it is potentially libelous to the persons implied by his claims, especially considering that people on the other side of the coin most certainly know many of his claims are categorically false. These persons are not able to defend themselves due to security restrictions.

Don't allow this to happen in the Wikisphere.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HealthySkepticism ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

All of Vance's allegations are presented as what they are, unproven accusations of wrongdoing. There is no libel in reporting the factual existence of allegations asserted in a legal claim filed in a federal court. Furthermore, some of your own statements here are potentially libelous, and have been removed. FCYTravis 22:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no BLP issue here. As FCYTravis notes, the article contains a fairly accurate description of Donald Vance's accusations. The only other named individual is Donald Rumsfeld, whom Vance is suing on the basis of the office he held during the period Vance alleges the incidents took place. Vance is not being libeled by this article, and neither is Rumsfeld. Your issue is not with the article but with the accuracy of what Vance alleges, which cannot be settled within Wikipedia; we can only report. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 20:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Richard Gere (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Revived debate on whether or not to include a rumour linking Gere to gerbilling. Proposed wording (currently deleted, but in the edit history for today's date) states that the rumour has been debunked. Debate is whether or not to include a persistent rumour that has been widely circulated for many years (indicating it has been debunked), or to exclude it because it is a rumour that has never been shown to have any truth to it. Additional eyes and commentary would be appreciated. Risker 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that the above poster did not pay attention to the RFC that was conducted on the article's talk page. It is clear from the discussion that the majority of commenters agree that the verifiability of the rumor is not the issue. The urban legend is very well sourced, as is the debunking of the same rumor. The wording of the text is neutral, and does not give undue weight to the topic. For the benefit of editors coming late to the discussion the proposed text (and sources) is:

Gerbil urban legend

During the mid-1980s, rumors were circulated that Gere had been admitted to hospital after inserting a live gerbil into his rectum for sexual gratification. ^{[1] [2]} The story has been debunked as a baseless urban legend. ^[3]

If this urban rumor is to be removed, then we should surely remove any untrue accusations made about anyone on Wikipedia. Shall we remove all the pages about Michael Jackson's alleged interference with young boys because they were judged untrue, or any suggestion that OJ was suspected of murder, or hundreds of other examples of accusations that were found to be untrue? The fact is that the MJ and OJ allegations were fully sourced, as is the Gere urban legend. The legend, even though it is untrue, has appeared in many, many books about urban legends, as well as being debunked on snopes.com. It verifiably exists and should be included. Sparkzilla 03:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear BLP violation, and exactly the kind of thing BLP is designed to prevent. The difference between the cases you mention is that those accusations are an integral part of any biography. OJ's trial is clearly something that should be mentioned, not just for the importance to his life but as an important historical event. MJ's trial also. Is some debunked urban legend which cannot be said to have been an important part of Gere's life on par with those things? Obviously not. -- C S (Talk) 04:59, 26 April

Can you tell me exactly how this violates BLP? You appear to be making a value judgement with no reference to the sources. Let me ask a question: Would you remove all mentions that Michael Jackson was accused of molesting boys, however well-sourced, because they were found to be false by the court? Even if the urban legend's contents are untrue, and even if it is debunked, as long as there are sources that say it existed, and that it related to Gere, then it should be on the page. Sparkzilla 05:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just explained the differences between these cases, so it's surprising that you persist with this kind of questioning. Some people have already explained to you the need for sensitivity (although you seem not to understand what this means). The key is that we need to be extra-sensitive in including border-line relevant, perhaps even "trivia"-like, information. I would hope this is obvious from a reading of the policy. -- C S (Talk) 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you haven't "explained" anything. The issue isn't one of sensitivity - it's one of sources. Contentious claims are allowed in BLP as long as it is backed up with good sources. I am following the policy of providing verifiable sources for contentious material. Perhaps the actual trial isn't the best example. Would you also remove from Wikipedia the well-sourced rumors that Michael Jackson slept in an oxygen tent, or that he had bought the bones of the Elephant man, even though those rumors were also untrue? From the Michael Jackson article.

Following this controversial business deal, tabloid stories of Jackson sleeping in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber to stall the aging-process, and an allegation claiming Jackson attempted to purchase the bones of the Elephant Man inspired the pejorative sobriquet "Wacko Jacko". The name "Wacko Jacko," which was first used by British media, would come to be detested by Jackson.

Y'know, because that seems like a double standard. Sparkzilla 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think so: in the cases of OJ and MJ, the accusations were part of a criminal trial and were very important to the lives of the accused. The gerbil rumor differs in that it is not important to Richard Gere personally. I think that is, by far, the strongest reason to delete it from his encyclopedic biography. I initially supported inclusion, but I've changed my mind (although I think opponents are relying heavily on the wrong arguments, such as verifiability). Exclusion is certainly conservative, but BLP policy rightly demands such conservatism. Interested readers can find information on the rumor in one of the "hundreds of sources" not bound by Wikipedia's standards. —  Demong ^talk 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You say I haven't explained anything in response to your query of why include allegations against Michael Jackson but not this Gere one. But nonetheless something I said must have registered, as you have now dropped this line of questioning by saying "perhaps the actual trial isn't the best example". May I offer the reason it isn't such a good example is that clearly such allegations and trial issues are obviously relevant to Jackson's article, far more than the urban legend about Gere is to his article?

Nice try, but no. Both examples illustrate accusations that were later shown to be untrue, but the accusation, being properly sourced still exists in the article. I clarified for you and other editors so that we can talk exactly about the same issue, on the same terms - so that I would not get the kind of answer you gave. Sparkzilla 07:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You still show a gross misunderstanding of policy. Backing up by good sources is only one necessity. As for the example you describe, I would need to take a closer look to decide, but it seems there are some good reasons to take a closer inspection of the Jackson article. There is no double standard here. We clean up articles one at a time. On the other hand, pointing to other articles to try and force your hand on another has never been a good ploy. -- C S (Talk) 07:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Apart from good quality sources, what else is necessary exactly? Notability? Check. No undue weight? Check. "Sensitivity"? Check (text includes the debunking). Anything else? Sparkzilla 07:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you also have a look at J. Edgar Hoover, which has a whole section of rumors and allegations, none of which can be proved. In fact it says in that article, "Although never corroborated, the allegation of cross-dressing has been widely repeated..." Why is it ok to include sourced rumors about Hoover, but include sourced and debunked rumors about Gere? Sparkzilla 14:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, sparkzilla... I know it's going to come as quite a shock. However, unfortunately, Hoover has passed away... um, 30-something years ago. The 'L' in 'BLP' stands for 'Living'. So, any examples that refer to non-living people are, by definition, an invalid comparison. Bladestorm 17:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the urban legends on Michael Jackson, who apparently is still alive. Double standard. Sparkzilla 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, you are absolutely right. We have more than enough sources for this culturally notable legend which has significantly influenced popular culture (Family Guy and even novels, check Google Books). We have listed many sources on the Gere talk page. We have met the notability standard: the rumour is massively popular and has influenced the public perception of Gere and effected his cultural status.

But MOST importantly, the note we included itself was extremely tasteful and totally sensitive. I cannot emphasize this more. By the way, we are linking to websites which mention the rumour (the Wiki article on gerbilling links to an article on Snopes about the urban legend, directly referencing Gere.) Algabal 15:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also like to point out that one difference between the OJ Simpson case and the Richard Gere case (beyond the wrongful death suit that was successful), is that it's easy to prove that people do believe that OJ did it. One could argue that you don't need to prove he did it, but you should at least prove that people think he did. In this case, the sources tend to be people discussing how they've been asked, based on something they heard from someone else. (If this isn't clear: The cited source says that they were asked by a second party who had heard something from a third party who may or may not have believed it.) Conversely, on WBEN(radio), there was actually someone stating definitively that they believed that Howard K Stern murdered Anna Nicole Smith. Should we include that rumour? Of course not. There are numerous people who believe that Don Imus used the word, "jigaboos" (for reference, it wasn't him, but rather mcguirk). And yet, I've read of several people criticizing him for using that word. Does the article on him mention the controversy? Yup, of course. Does it include mcguirk saying "jigaboos"? Yup, of course. Does it include any reference at all to people thinking it was Imus who said that? No, of course not. In this case, it's still pertinent. And, in this case, it's easy to prove that people believe it. And yet, we don't include it. BLP should protect people from such things. But, in this case, again, we don't even have evidence that people believe this rumour. To me, that puts it on a lower level. Bladestorm 17:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We have already determined that the urban legend does nto have to be true, or have to be belied to be included. Contentious material on a BLP simply needs to be well-sourced, which this legend is. That's the very nature of urban legends, after all. There are thousands of well-sourced reports of allegations and urban legends on Wikipedia. most of which are untrue, or were proven to be false. Most of the examples you use above do not have credible sources. This urban legend, as it specifically relates to Gere, is well sourced. It is not our job to protect Gere from reality - we simply report credible sources.

We have moved on from the discussion of OJ, to ask why urban legends and rumors are allowed on the pages of J Edgar Hoover and Michael jackson. There is clearly a double standard here. Sparkzilla 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As of right now there are there's a 270-word section on the Tom Cruise article devoted to an episode of South Park which implied that Cruise was gay. That episode aired last year. In comparison, we've been seeing references to the Gere/gerbilling legend in the popular media for the last twenty years, including movies like Scream and TV shows like Family Guy. If Wikipedia can devote that much space to a joke made in a cartoon TV show about Tom Cruise, I should think it could devote a few lines to addressing a rumor about Gere that has been consistently popular for two decades, that has many more references in the media, and that has become a permanent aspect of his particular fame. Darthmix 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap... For what it's worth, that's grossly inappropriate as well. (Though I think the allegations that he pressured paramount is a far worse violation of BLP.) However, at the very least, note that (and again, I disagree with the inclusion of that section in cruise's article), at least, that article directly states who is making the homosexuality rumours. It's specifically Trey Parker and Matt Stone. That section doesn't say that Stone says that someone told him that someone told them that Cruise may or may not be gay. It isn't hearsay of hearsay of hearsay. Bladestorm 01:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand how Wikipedia works. We simply report sources. If credible sources say that an urban legend about Gere exists then it goes on the page. Are we also to not include any myths, legends and fairy stories because we know they are not true, and don't know who started them? Sparkzilla 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and Bladestorm, if you think it makes a difference that the Tom Cruise article attributes the claim to South Park in particular, it'd be an easy matter for us to list any number of similar pop-culture references to the gerbilling story. At one point the Family Guy reference was in the Gere article, along with a picture of it, but both were deleted. Darthmix 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But wait, there's more! Check out the article for John Gilchrist (actor), which mentions a popular urban legend that Gilchrist died from eating pop-rocks and soda at the same time. The legend is also mentioned in the Life cereal and Little Mikey articles. It's pure rumor and demonstrably untrue - Gilchrist is still living - and yet it would be absurd to delete it from those articles, because the legend has become culturally significant: It's nearly as well-known as the commercial itself, 35 years after it aired. That's the real point here. We're not using Wikipedia as a means to disseminate gossip-column rumors; we're recognizing and noting a culturally significant phenomenon that relates specifically to this celebrity. And since the claim made by section that was deleted - not to mention everything I just said - comes right out of the published works of the top scholars of urban folklore, like Jan Harold Brunvand and Barbara Mikkelson, it's entirely consistent with the BLP standards and presents no basis for legal action against Wikipedia. Darthmix 04:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

Simple WP:OR/ WP:WEIGHT issue - no urgency per WP:BLP since it seems reasonable to expect that our mentioning it will not affect Gere. It also seems clear that even the opposing editors have no problem discussing this freely on talk and project pages which in itself indicates it isn't a sensitive BLP issue (WP:BLP also applies to project and talk pages).

Inclusion depends on the availability of reliable sources reporting that this urban legend has affected Gere's career/life/reputation/etc to a notable degree. So far I haven't seen such sources. The issue should be discussed on the article's talk page and is subject to WP:consensus and WP:DR. As long as there is no consensus to include it, keep it out. My opinion: It does not belong in the article since it's simply not relevant to the subject. FWIW, I see no problem whatsoever with including it as an example in Urban legend, or its current presence in The Cartridge Family. AvB ÷  talk 08:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is a content dispute which does not belong on this noticeboard. It's merely serving as a magnet for low-level prurient interest here. — Athænara ✉ 10:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gere (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regarding the removal of a few sentences about persistant rumors that Gere's marriage to Cindy Crawford was a sham to cover their alleged homosexuality. These rumors were so persistant that Gere and Crawford had to take out a newspaper ad to defend themselves. (Google search: [2])

The following Wikipedia text and source is proposed "Due to persistant rumors that their marriage was a sham, Gere and Crawford took a full-page ad out in the Times, announcing that, 'We are heterosexual and monogamous and take our commitment to each other very seriously.' Eight months later they separated. [3]

The discussion has taken place on Richard Gere talk [4] and at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales [5]. There are basically two sides...

• User:FNMF claims that 1. BLP policy exists to protect people from unsubstantiated and false malicious allegations. 2. The fact that Gere took out a newspaper ad to deny one of the allegations does not establish that he is notable for reasons to do with the sexual behaviour. In fact, he took the ad out to make clear that he is not notable for his sexual behaviour. Taking out an ad does not mean he wishes to have the allegations published along with his denial. Rather, it means he wishes people to stop printing the unsubstantiated allegations, and certainly not in an encyclopaedia. 3. The rumours are unsubstantiated, that is, no evidence has been given that the rumours are true. In such circumstances, including these rumours clearly violates WP:BLP.

• User:Sparkzilla claims that 1. the existence of the ad in the Times is a matter of fact, it's existence is not a rumor. 2. It was placed in the Times, a notable publication and was reported on by world media. 3. The letter specifically addressed issues of Gere's sexuality, by Gere himself. 4. The letter appears on other biographies.

Sparkzilla offered to build consensus by opening an RFC to allow other editors to vote on this issue. However, FNMF has stated "Please feel free to open an RfC. Please note, however, that a vote cannot make it OK to blatantly violate WP:BLP. Only a change of policy could make it OK to include false and unsubstantiated malicious and non-notable allegations on the pages of Wikipedia". And that's why I have brought this here...I appreciate comments. Sparkzilla 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla is correct. Carol Burnett sued the National Inquirer for calling her a drunk. Richard Gere puts an ad in a major newspaper saying he's not gay. These statements are not libel and therefore not really an issue for BLP. -- Gbleem 10:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: there are two issues at the Gere entry. The first issue concerns a false and malicious allegation about sexual behaviour, an allegation that Gere has never responded to. The second issue concerns an unsubstantiated and malicious allegation about a marriage, an allegation that Gere and the other involved party have explicitly denied. Some points:

• In the most general terms in relation to WP:BLP, I believe both these allegations should be excluded because to include them would be insensitive, contentious, controversial, non-conservative, and non-encyclopaedic, all of which makes them policy violations. WP:BLP specifically states the necessity of editing BLP entries sensitively and conservatively. For instance, at the beginning of the section "Presumption in favor of privacy" it states: "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy." I do not believe that inclusion of false or unsubstantiated malicious allegations constitutes conservative editing.
• My second objection is on the grounds of non-notability. WP:BLP gives the following example: ""John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out." I note that this example makes clear that even true and verifiable information may need to be excluded from the entry. Unless the details of the messy divorce are notable AND verifiable AND important to the article, they should be excluded. What this means is that notability means notability in relation to the subject of the entry ("important to the article"). That is, it means notability in relation to the reasons the subject of the entry is notable. The second example given at WP:BLP is about a politician who denies an affair, but the allegations of which are published at the New York Times. The example states that this may be able to be included, if properly cited. This may at first glance resemble the allegations about Gere's marriage. This would be a false conclusion: the example given in WP:BLP is about allegations that a reputable newspaper has chosen to put forward; in the Gere case, we are talking about second-hand reporting of unsubstantiated rumours by anonymous others. No reputable source has asserted these rumours as allegations, merely occasionally reported them as existing or denied rumours. They have not reported them as allegations because they are unsubstantiated, or because they are false. I further note that it is significant that in the second example at WP:BLP the person is described as a politician. That is because an argument can be made that the honesty or morality of a politician is relevant to their notability as a politician. There is a big difference between the question of whether Bill Clinton lied about an affair with Monica Lewinsky, and the question of whether Richard Gere is guilty of either of the two allegations about him. One has some connection to the notability of the subject; the other does not. Gere's notability derives firstly and mainly from his being an actor; secondarily from factors such as his Buddhism or his samaritanism, etc. His notability has nothing to do with his sexual or marital behaviour. No attempt to establish this notability in relation to Gere has been made.
• What is WP:BLP for, if not to protect living persons from the harm done by printing false and unsubstantiated malicious and non-notable allegations? No living person should have to read false and unsubstantiated allegations about themselves in an encyclopaedia. Any glance at WP:BLP will show that the overriding consideration of this policy is to avoid exactly this type of situation. I point out that the first of these rumours was removed over two years ago, and perfectly good grounds for the removal were given at the time. Since that time, editors have periodically chosen to insist on the notability and importance of these rumours, but have failed to address the very clear violation of WP:BLP that such inclusion would involve. The first rumour is admitted by all to be false, and is obviously malicious, yet some editors persist in arguing that it should be included. The second rumour is completely unsubstantiated, and has been denied by the subject of the entry, who was clearly unhappy with it, yet editors persist in claiming that this denial itself establishes notability.
• Finally, I note that the version of text being proposed itself tries to sneakily imply that the allegation is true, by making sure to include the part of the quote that indicates the marriage broke up soon after, thus trying to indicate that Gere's statements about his marriage were generally false. No doubt editors will deny that they were or are implying this, but I think such denials, if they occur, are disingenuous. This ability to imply something negative about the subject of an entry by including other negative material is exactly what WP:BLP is designed to avoid. That is why the example of the messy divorce is so spot on. Including details of a messy divorce are a way of implicitly attacking the subject of the entry. Without clear grounds of notability, such things should be excluded. In the case we are dealing with, those messy divorce details are not even substantiated, and no reputable source has asserted the allegations.

Thus, in conclusion, it is indeed clear in my view that both these allegations should be excluded from the entry on WP:BLP grounds. I reiterate WP:BLP: "Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out." FNMF 11:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

FNMF, please read WP:BLP#Public_figures. This is not John Doe vs Jane Doe, but a public figure.

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Sparkzilla 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of the names John and Jane Doe in the example given in WP:BLP is not meant to indicate that they are not public figures. The example is precisely about the messy divorce of a public figure. I am not against the inclusion of negative information about a public figure. I am against the inclusion of false and unsubstantiated malicious and non-notable allegations about a public figure. There is a big difference between "information" and false or unsubstantiated allegations. FNMF 12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gere put an ad in a newspaper where he says something about his marriage. Richard Gere later divorced his wife. Are these facts? Yes. Are they notable? Yes. The agenda of any wikipedia editors, any rude statements they may have made, or bad arguements they have made has nothing to do with the answers to these two questions. -- Gbleem 12:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I fully understand why this is not a BLP issue. BLP policy, and this noticeboard, aims to prevent Wikipedia itself making potentially libelous claims. In other words, BLP policy exists simply to make sure that allegations, claims and facts are properly sourced. That's it. If it's got reliable sources sources then it's not a BLP issue. Sparkzilla 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's your summary of WP:BLP, is it? FNMF 12:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is very clear. Please read this again:

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Sparkzilla 12:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for cutting-and-pasting that paragraph a second time, however I continue to believe that there are significant aspects of WP:BLP which amount to more than simply "If it's got reliable sources sources then it's not a BLP issue." Let me give you an example. Suppose that an actor puts out a statement that they are not homosexual. Would it then be OK to include the following paragraph in a Wikipedia entry about that person?: "Actor X denied rumours that they are homosexual. Actor X lives in Suburb Y. Suburb Y is next door to Suburb Z, which is a known homosexual hangout." It may well be possible to give a verifiable and reliable source for each of these three pieces of information. According to your proposition that "If it's got reliable sources sources then it's not a BLP issue," this would be an acceptable paragraph. But it is not an acceptable paragraph, because the third sentence carries the implication (a) that Actor X is homosexual; (b) that he lives in Suburb Y because it is close to Suburb Z; and (c) that Actor X was lying when he issued his denial. All this is implied, even though each of the sentences is reliably sourced. So it might seem the problem was the inclusion of the third sentence. What could be the problem with this sentence? The answer is: it is not notable. It might be notable in an entry on Suburb Z, but it is not notable in relation to Actor X, even though he lives next door. But the real problem is that the entire paragraph was really only included by an editor who wished to include the denial by Actor X, and who wished to include the denial so that he could mention the original rumour. Something very similar to this is occurring at the Gere entry, as indicated by the very first sentence written in this section, beginning, "Regarding the removal of a few sentences..." FNMF 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's simple matter to rewrite the paragraph to avoid the implication you are so worried about.

In April 1994 the French weekly tabloid Voici said that the marriage was a sham, that Gere "preferred men", that Crawford "played at ambiguity with her female pals" and that their union of convenience was about to end. [6] In May, 1994, Gere and Crawford took a full-page ad out in the London Times, announcing that, 'We are heterosexual and monogamous and take our commitment to each other very seriously. Reports of a divorce are totally false. We remain very married. We both look forward to having a family.' [7] On Dec 1, the couple released a brief statement announcing their separation, calling it a "personal and painful decision". [8] Sparkzilla 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This proposed version continues to violate policy, for all the reasons cited in my comments. It contains unsubstantiated malicious allegations made by a sensationalist tabloid, and the entire incident is exactly like the messy divorce example that policy dictates ought not be included. In short, there is nothing notable in any of this (the other cited sources are Entertainment Weekly and People Magazine!). To include this paragraph would be to edit insensitively, contentiously, and non-conservatively, all of which violates WP:BLP. It is also non-encyclopaedic. Furthermore, it still carries the implication you say it is so simple to remove. All this material should be excluded. FNMF 13:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that Entertainment Weekly and People Magazine are reliable sources with editorial oversight. In any case, I looked out another source from The Independent, and I can find many, many more. [9].

As Gbleem points out, please check the Carol Burnett page for another example where a celebrity was accused by a tabloid. On that page, are we not to mention that she was accused of being a drunk, even though that was a false and unsubstantiated rumor?

This is simply not a BLP dispute as Wikipedia is not making the claims. It is a content dispute, which means 1) are the sources reliable - YES 2) is there original research (what I think you mean by the implication above) - NO and 3) is there undue weight - NO. The above paragraph is therefore fit for inclusion. Sparkzilla 13:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Carol Burnett example concerns a lawsuit she took out against the malicious allegation made about her. If she had not made that lawsuit, then there would be no grounds for including the allegation. This is a good example: just because the National Enquirer claimed Carol Burnett was a drunk does not make it OK to include that allegation on Wikipedia. It is only notable in the context of the lawsuit. So, you might say, what about the Richard Gere ad? Doesn't that establish the notability of the allegation concerning him, then? Not in my opinion. Whereas the Burnett issue is presented in the entry on her as a significant case of a public figure hitting back against defamatory allegations by tabloid newspapers, the Gere issue is being exploited by editors in order to present the allegations, allegations which are unsubstantiated, contentious, and malicious. Whereas Burnett would be unlikely to object to the presentation of her issue, because it is edited sensitively, and because it is really about a lawsuit, Gere would be very likely to object to the inclusion of the unsubstantiated, malicious allegations against him, because such inclusion is insensitive and contentious, and really about the allegations themselves. And he would have every right to object, because such material has no place in an encyclopaedia. The day Gere starts a lawsuit about these allegations, or the day they are confirmed as true, it may become appropriate to make mention of them. Until that day comes, there are no grounds for doing so. FNMF 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I compared Gere's ad to the Carol Burnett lawsuit is that both examples involve action by the subject. The ad in the paper was not a lawsuit but it is something Gere himself did do. There is no rumor that Gere purchased the newspaper ad. Gere actually placed the ad. -- Gbleem 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are pointing to the similarities between the Gere and Burnett cases. I am arguing that the differences between these examples are also significant, and, in fact, more significant than the similarities. FNMF 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your continued assertion that "biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone". Yes, it does say that here WP:BLP#STYLE, but let's just read the entire section, shall we?

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

I added the bold. I sincerely hope that you will stop misrepresenting BLP policy to stop properly sourced negative information to appear on biography pages. Sparkzilla 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Sparkzilla: You are not supposed to imply a conclusion by juxtaposing sourced facts in order to get the reader to draw a conclusion. Putting together the rumor that an actor is gay, his statement that he is committed to marriage, and the timing of the divorce is an obvious attempt to lead the reader to conclude that he is gay and lied about wanting to remain married. Just because the article doesn't actually include a statement saying "... and this divorce demonstrates that he lied about his heterosexuality" doesn't mean that it may make the statement by implication. Ken Arromdee 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ken, I personally don't take such an implication from the paragraph. It's simply FACT 1. FACT 2. Original research would be where I actually said that FACT 1 = FACT 2. In the version written above there is no implication about what caused the breakup. They wrote a letter claiming they were happy and then they broke up. Well, maybe I can think they weren't so happy, but it would be wrong to write that assumption in the article.

Nonetheless, I have already offered to change the paragraph to avoid such an implication. If you or FNMF would like to reword the final sentence or have a suggestion that would mitigate the implication, then feel free to try. Sparkzilla 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, as I have already mentioned, I am not against including properly sourced negative information. I am against including false and unsubstantiated malicious allegations. The difference is pretty clear, I would have thought. And now: do you suppose you might attend to the issue of whether inclusion of these allegations is sensitive, conservative, factual, neutral, and encyclopaedic? Because from where I'm sitting, it ain't. Here's my version of the sum total of what should be included about the marriage: "Gere was married to supermodel Cindy Crawford from 1991 to 1995." FNMF 15:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL. That's possibly the stupidest thing I have seen on Wikipedia yet. It complete denies the notability of both the Times letter and the accusations that prompted it.

In April 1994 the French weekly tabloid Voici said that the marriage was a sham, that Gere "preferred men", that Crawford "played at ambiguity with her female pals" and that their union of convenience was about to end. [10] In May, 1994, Gere and Crawford took a full-page ad out in the London Times, announcing that, 'We are heterosexual and monogamous and take our commitment to each other very seriously. Reports of a divorce are totally false. We remain very married. We both look forward to having a family.' [11] In the following months it weas claimed that Gere was linked romantically to Uma Thurman and a british model. The couple contined to deny their marriage was in trouble. On Dec 1, the couple released a brief statement announcing their separation, calling it a "personal and painful decision". [12]

This is simply not a BLP issue. Sparkzilla 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I do deny the notability of these things. I have been doing so for some time now, and it surprises me that you appear to only just have realised this. It seems to me that by your logic Wikipedia can print any allegations whatsoever, so long as some tabloid newspaper somewhere in the world printed them first, and so long as they are about somebody famous. I really don't know why you think WP:BLP exists, since you seem to reduce it to nothing more than the policy on verifiability (while throwing out half that policy as well). But since you have again succumbed to the temptation to resort to personal attacks, I shall leave this discussion alone for a while. Clearly there is at present no consensus for inclusion of this material. FNMF 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is tiresome to deal with your narrow interpretation of policy. You simply do not understand why this is not a BLP issue. BLP exists to make sure that all allegations, claims and facts are not attributed to Wikipedia, but to external sources. The BLP policy clearly says that negative allegations may be included if they are properly sourced, and even if the subject does not like it.

If the allegations had been printed in a tabloid and forgotten about then they would have no place here. Tabloid allegations deserve no mention in Wikipedia as they violate WP:RS and WP:NOTE. But in this case Gere responded to the allegations by placing a full-page ad in The Times. How can that NOT be notable? Then the fact that he had placed such an ad was picked up in many other news outlets (reliable sources), as part of stories on the Gere/Crawford relationship. So we have clear notability and reliable sources.

BTW, the standard of notability on Wikipedia is: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This is definitely true of the Times letter.

So far we have two three editors (myself, GBleem, Algabal) who think this is not a BLP issue. I await the comments of other editors who I hope will allow this issue to be decided once and for all. Sparkzilla 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have become exhausted of these Gere discussions, but I must say that I feel the fact that Gere took out a full-page ad in response to the rumor automatically qualifies it as both both notable and not in violation of any BLP rules (and as such, not a BLP issue, as Sparkzilla noted). Mr. Gere publicly acknowledged the rumour, the world took notice. The Mt. Sinai rodent rumour is a bit more complex as Gere never directly responded to it, but the Crawford/Gere lavender marriage issue is as straight-forwardly notable as possible. Algabal 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Small point, but he didn't take the ad out in response to a "rumor" but in direct response to the article in the French tabloid. Sparkzilla 16:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important for editors to realise that, despite some appearances to the contrary, Sparkzilla is hoping that this debate will be a prelude to re-introducing the false gerbil allegations, as indicated by this very recent edit. FNMF 16:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It has already been determined in a previous RFC [13] that the infamous gerbil story is also not a BLP issue, for the same reasons as this discussion -- Wikipedia is not libeling Gere. The issues are whether the urban legend has reliable sources and is notable. That said, this is not the time or place to deal with that issue, or your fearmongering. Let's get consensus on this particular issue first, shall we? Sparkzilla 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Support including the first two sentences about the Gere/Crawford ad, it is described in more than just People (magazine), it is also described in The Independent [14]. Oppose the next two sentences about Uma Thurman/British model, there is nothing special about that, tabloids publish rumours about celebrities being seen dining with each other all the time, notice neither Entertainment Weekly nor The Independent mention those. Oppose including anything about the gerbil - all reliable sources, without exception, call the story false and many call it slander, libel, or worse. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, do you accept the following? Could you also say whether you think this text is a BLP issue? Thank you

In April 1994 the French weekly tabloid Voici said that the marriage was a sham, that Gere "preferred men", that Crawford "played at ambiguity with her female pals" and that their union of convenience was about to end. [15] In May, 1994, Gere and Crawford took a full-page ad out in the London Times, announcing that, 'We are heterosexual and monogamous and take our commitment to each other very seriously. Reports of a divorce are totally false. We remain very married. We both look forward to having a family.' [16] On Dec 1, the couple released a brief statement announcing their separation, calling it a "personal and painful decision". [17] Sparkzilla 17:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that The Independent chose not to mention the suggestion of homosexuality, and chose not to include any quotations about preferring men, etcetera. This was clearly a deliberate decision on the part of the newspaper: the article went out of its way not to make any such mention. I wonder why? Perhaps because it is an unsubstantiated and malicious allegation. Thus this newspaper article is definitely not a source supporting inclusion of any statements about Gere's purported homosexuality. FNMF 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend

1. "Voici wrote", rather than "said"
2. Avoiding the quote marks. That implies that we are using exact words, and Voici seems to be written in French, which makes it likely we're actually using someone's translation.
3. spelling out and wikilinking December 1 per WP:DATE, and
4. using the The Independent article as an additional source, not just People (magazine) and Entertainment Weekly, to strengthen the case.

Yes, it's certainly a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons issue, Gere is a living person, and a tabloid calling his marriage a sham is clearly controversial. That doesn't mean we can't write about it, it just means that what we write needs to be rigorously sourced. Three separate magazines, not even counting either Voici or The Times themselves, is sufficiently rigorous.

FNMF's point about the phrasing is a bit of splitting hairs that we can argue a bit and eventually compromise on. Note that EW does mention homosexuality, and The Independent does stress the point about heterosexuality in the ad, that way could be sufficient. Maybe "... wrote that their union was a sham marriage of convenience and about to end" would address that and number 2 above as well. But again, all that is splitting hairs. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly I have been wasting my time and energy. Editors of Wikipedia are obviously of the opinion that it is legitimate for an encyclopaedia to write that it has been asserted that Richard Gere is homosexual and had a sham marriage to conceal his homosexuality. Editors of Wikipedia are happy to write this, even though there is no evidence for the accusation, and no legitimate source has asserted this accusation as true. It is my opinion that there is no sensitive, conservative, non-contentious, non-controversial, neutral, factual way to write about this accusation, and that it should therefore obviously be excluded from the entry. Editors of Wikipedia clearly disagree with this analysis. Go for the gold. FNMF 18:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We've got entire articles about far more controversial things with no evidence or legitimate source asserting as true, for example the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the 9/11 conspiracy theories, the Roswell UFO incident, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, a whole Category:Holocaust denial... This is two sentences about something that Gere himself thought important enough to publish a full page ad about in one of the most influential newspapers in the world. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FNMF. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

None of AnonEMouse's examples are mainly about living people, and when they do touch upon living people (i.e. George Bush in 9/11 conspiracy theories) the accusations form a much smaller proportion of Wikipedia's content about that person. Moreover, all those rumors are labelled as rumors and presented in a way that doesn't try to imply that they are true. Ken Arromdee 21:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but not only are the 9/11 conspiracy theories absolutely about living people (whom else are they about?),and the Protocols are used to attack living people in much more serious ways than this. I agree this shouldn't get undue weight, but we're talking about 2 sentences here, while, just to use your example, the length the 9/11 conspiracy theories and George W. Bush articles are far more comparable. Finally, I don't see that we're saying these rumors are true, if we are, we certainly should rephrase so we don't state any opinion. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the problem? There are or have been rumours regarding Richard Gere, some of which may have related to his sexuality and therefore the legitimacy of his marriage. WP need not and should not spell these out or perhaps even mention them except Richard Gere himself considered them important enough to take out an ad in a national (and highly respected) newspaper to comment on the state of his marriage. Even if it might be argued that he simply chose a highly unusual (unique, perhaps?) manner in which to state his commitment to his wife - and vice versa - (but then why the statement that they are heterosexual rather than simply faithful?) it is notable enough to be mentioned of itself. It is then, considering the content of the advert, legitimate to provide reasons why Gere/Crawford felt it appropriate to make this announcement by citing legitimate third party references.

In short, Gere has been the subject of rumours. Some of these rumours appear to have questioned the validity of his marriage to Cindy Crawford. Gere/Crawford took the highly unusual step of taking out an advert to comment upon the state of their marriage, in a context that rebutts certain rumours (this is the highly notable event, from which all preceeds and proceeds). Some time after the advert the couple confirmed their intention to end the marriage. Provide references as required by BLP for every part of the above and it is a legitimate part of the article.

WP is does not comment upon the truth of what is written, only that it can be verified by good sources. BLP policy requires absolutely stringent application of this policy. If that is satisfied then it can included. Again, where is the problem? LessHeard vanU 20:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, there is not consensus here. Five editors - yourself, Algabal, Gbleem, AnonEmouse, and LessHeard vanU - believe this should be there. Four editors - FNMF, KenArromdee, Kittybrewster, and myself do not think that this should be in the article. Sinply because one side of the debate posts more does not mean that more people agree with them. Risker 05:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If in doubt, leave it out, and there's clearly doubt in this case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Doubt about what exactly? Gere is a public figure so the following text is applicable:

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

The incident is notable, relevant and well-documented by reliable published sources, therefore according to BLP policy it should go in. Sparkzilla 10:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It really shouldn't matter. It's clearly against the spirit of the BLP policy to use someone's attempt to stop an accusation to justify giving the accusation more press. It should therefore be left out under WP:IAR unless you can find other reasons for notability than the ad. Ken Arromdee 14:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for its notability are that multiple independent secondary sources (The Independent, Entertainment Weekly, People) wrote about it. There are more, in fact: L'Humanite L'Humanite, a couple of published books, [18] [19], The New York Times [20] , The Biography Channel [21], BBC News [22], and of course, The Times itself [23] [24] [25]. That clearly meets our definition of Wikipedia:Notability. If following our policies and guidelines like that means we're going to be classed as a tabloid with no higher editorial standards than those cheap rags -- the New York Times, the London Times, the BBC, and the Biography Channel -- I think we will just need to live with it.-- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You can ignore what I said above, where I argued that it shouldn't count as notable--because that doesn't matter. Even if it *is* notable, that doesn't mean we have to include it. Something may be notable and we might still want to leave it out for some reason; there's no rule saying that all facts that are notable must be in the encyclopedia. Ken Arromdee 05:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ken, please give a reason for exclusion of this material then. Thank you. Sparkzilla 06:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How about the fact that it's false, scurrilous, trivial, meaningless, demeaning, insipid and completely valueless. The mere fact that baseless, vile rumours have been circulated about someone means absolutely nothing. It's anonymously-spread gossip that tells us absolutely nothing about the man and his life. It has no place in a brief Wikipedia biography. FCYTravis 06:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Having sources is just one part of the equation. Our policies work hand in hand, and above all there is the good judgment of editors in applying these, in particular in BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, EVERY Gere biography mentions the his letter to the Times which was written in reaction to "rumors of homosexuality". What is so special about Wikipedia that it should not be mentioned here? Sparkzilla 09:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst engaging in the discussion here, user Sparkzilla attempted to initiate a change of WP:BLP at the WP:BLP talk page. He argued for removal of the requirement to edit BLP entries sensitively, responsibly, and conservatively. One response to this attempt was made by the very experienced Wikipedian WAS_4.250, who headed his response by noting that "Sensitivity is the essence of WP:BLP." I then initiated a discussion with WAS_4.250 at his talk page, in which he made clear that until unbiased and established Wikipedians make clear that no violations of WP:BLP are involved, contentious material should be left out of BLP entries. The discussion can be viewed here. I also note that another very experienced Wikipedian, SlimVirgin, has restored certain parts of WP:BLP that had been altered in the past few days. The restored version is even more clear about the requirements of editing BLP entries. FNMF 05:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What WAS also said was "Whether this is such a case or not should be decided by unbiased well-informed established-wikipedians. I am not well-informed on the issue in question". So far you the consensus here is to keep the material as proposed. Sparkzilla 05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users argue this material violates policy and should not be included. There is clearly no consensus to include this material. FNMF 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, it is an argument on evidence. It is still being argued that the interpretation of sensitivity in relation to BLP by some editors overrides general principles of verifiability, notability, and NPOV well established in en-Wikipedia. That is why discussions on interpretation of policy are decided by an authority (usually an admin) who records the arguments used and not who or how many people took what view. To say something has or has not reached consensus, if you are a opponent or proponent, is disingenuous. It has not been decided upon. LessHeard vanU 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point there is no consensus to include this material. FNMF 23:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"It is still being argued that the interpretation of sensitivity in relation to BLP by some editors overrides general principles of verifiability, notability, and NPOV well established in en-Wikipedia."

I'm sorry, this is utter nonsense. The principles of verifiability, notability, NPOV, etc. say that all material which is included must meet those standards. They do not say that all material which meets those standards must be included; that is backwards. Failing to include something which meets them is not an override of a policy, because the polices do not demand inclusion. Ken Arromdee 04:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To cite the policy in question, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source." This is clearly an article about a public figure, and information has been published by a number of sources, including ... yes, the New York Times. So it clearly doesn't violate policy. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what seems clear to you is not clear to others. Others disagree with you. That is why there is no consensus to include this material. The example you cite from WP:BLP was discussed previously in this discussion. I disagree that the example you cite justifies inclusion of this material. FNMF 22:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed between you and Sparkzilla when the material was sourced much less tightly, before I posted the Times, BBC, Biography channel, and other citations (including the New York Times, itself, of course). It was also discussed when the proposed material was much different then the two sentences currently proposed. It seems hard to argue that the two sentences proposed do not fit almost exactly with the WP:BLP example. If you still honestly believe they do not fit, please make that argument. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I continue to hold to the arguments made previously. I do not believe there is any way to include this material in a sensitive, conservative, neutral, factual, responsible, non-contentious and non-controversial way. I believe the other example given in WP:BLP, about a messy divorce, remains relevant, and I re-iterate its message: "Is it notable, verifiable, and important to the article? If not, leave it out." I don't believe this material is notable, nor do I believe it is important to the article. This material is not encyclopaedic. And I continue to reiterate: no credible source asserts the allegation about Gere's marriage as true. There may be verifiable sources that the allegation exists. But there are no verifiable sources prepared to assert the allegation as true. Finally, I do not believe I need to keep repeating these arguments. I have made my case at length, and in detail. Some editors continue to disagree with me, while others agree. When disagreeing editors have been confronted with the reality of WP:BLP, they have attempted to change WP:BLP. But that policy remains in force as is, with a strong consensus of support. I agree with the very experienced user WAS_4.250 that sensitivity is the essence of BLP, and I believe, along with a number of other editors, that it is important for users to uphold WP:BLP in order to protect the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. This leaves us, as far as I can see, at the following point: when a number of unbiased and established Wikipedians make clear that no policy violations are entailed by including this material, then the material may be included. That has not occurred. FNMF 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, let's see what kind of compromise we can reach, then. I hope you agree that sufficient credible sources devote column space to Gere's placing the ad, yes? -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The ad is neither notable nor important to the article. The details of the Gere-Crawford marriage are neither notable nor important to the article. Including mention of this ad seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to refer, directly or indirectly, to the unsubstantiated and malicious allegations that prompted the ad. There are no grounds to refer to these unsubstantiated and malicious allegations which no credible source has asserted as true. Inclusion of this material is utterly unencyclopaedic. I refer again to the very relevant example from WP:BLP concerning the messy divorce: "Is it notable, verifiable, and important to the article? If not, leave it out." Leave it out. FNMF 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Then it sounds like you're not interested in reaching any genuine agreement. The people at Biography.com, who may be considered to know a few things about biographies, considered it important enough to their article. The people at the New York Times, the Times of London, and the BBC, who are generally considered to know a few things about what is good journalism, considered it more than unsubstantiated and malicious allegations. The people at The Independent, Entertainment Weekly, and People Magazine ... but I don't need to go on. It seems your standards for "notable, verifiable, and important to the article" differ from all of those. I humbly submit that also means your standards are different from those of the Wikipedia.

What's more, it seems your goals and methods in this discussion are different from those the Wikipedia tries to use. We're supposed to be here to discuss, compromise, listen to each others' arguments, and reach a genuine consensus that reflects our policies, and your response does not show that you are interested in any of that, merely to keep repeating your point no matter what anyone else says, and believe that if you never compromise, you will "win". That's not what we do here. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He has already stated that he is not interested in consensus, and has said "Please feel free to open an RfC. Please note, however, that a vote cannot make it OK to blatantly violate WP:BLP. Only a change of policy could make it OK to include false and unsubstantiated malicious and non-notable allegations on the pages of Wikipedia".

Even if we took this to WP:Note I am sure FNMF would claim that BLP policy requires that we not include the material, as we would have to edit sensitively and conservatively hence the discussion of policy on the [[Talk:WP:BLP]]. Sparkzilla 15:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To AnonEMouse and Sparkzilla: Please stop uncivilly characterising my attitude as a refusal to find consensus, or as a refusal to find agreement. Just because you continue to disagree with my position does not mean I am refusing to find agreement. There is no requirement for me to agree with you, no more than there is a requirement for you to agree with me. That said, I must make it very clear: my standards are not at all different from Wikipedia's. Wikipedia's standards for notability are not borrowed from People Magazine nor from Entertainment Weekly, nor even from any newspaper. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper, and operates according to the standards of an encyclopaedia. That material included in newspapers is a source of information is undeniable, but that does not mean Wikipedia uses the same standard to determine what to include. Do you know of any encyclopaedias that include this contentious material? That might be a good place to start if you wish to argue this material is encyclopaedic. Your frustration at my failure to agree with you may be understandable, but that does not mean I have not listened to others' arguments or refused to discuss. I have discussed this issue at extreme length, responded to arguments at length, and made a great effort at explanation, for no other reason than to defend Wikipedia from policy violations I saw taking place. I note further that Sparkzilla has taken this issue from the talk page, to the Jimbo Wales talk page, to this BLP noticeboard, to the WP:BLP talk page, and back to here, moving on from one forum to the next whenever the obstacles to his position appear too great. All of these changes of forum were initiated by him. Rather than myself being unprepared to accept a decision, it is clear that Sparkzilla will not accept what is the clear conclusion of all this effort: that there is no consensus to include this material. I and others do not accept the arguments for inclusion that have been put. I may have been more prepared than most to articulate at length why I am not persuaded to include this material, but do not forget the positions of Risker, Kittybrewster, Ken Arromdee, SlimVirgin, FCYTravis, and Jossi, all of whom have agreed that there is no consensus for inclusion of this material. That is a total of seven editors. Good faith editors ought to be able to admit that at present there is no consensus to include this material. FNMF 17:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia:Request for comments has been opened on this issue at Talk:Richard_Gere#Request_for_comments. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again with the arbitrary definitions! Now you're onto "unencyclopedic". Wikipedia would be a fraction of the size if it had the standards of a print encyclopedia - are we to remove everything from Wikipedia that is not also mentioned in Encyclopedia Brittanica?

This proves without a doubt that you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Look at the botom of the text input box: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" not "Verifiable content must be encyclopedic". The standard of what is encyclopedic in Wikipedia is notability and verifiability. We dont make an arbitrary standard of what is encyclopedic first, and then remove items that are notable and verifiable because they don't match our definition. We don't make an arbitrary standard of sensitivity and then delete items that don't match. We look at the sources, and if they are verifiable and reliable, and match other policies then the item goes in.

The material is mentioned in multiple Gere biographies. It was a major notable event in his life. It is notable, relevant and cited in multiple sources. It is encyclopedic by definition. Sparkzilla 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

FMNF: There is one thing that I have seen in open source software that I have seen very little of in relation to Wikipedia. That is forking. There are some forks out there but not enough. You obviously have the drive. Get some space on a server and get out there and fork Wikipedia. -- Gbleem 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In re gossip. rumours and urban legends and whatever encyclopedic import they may be alleged to have:

"…in 1972 it was calculated by the Paris publication France Dimanche, after an analysis of its cuttings file on the British royal family, that there had been published in France in the previous fourteen years 63 reports of Elizabeth II's abdication, 73 reports of her divorce from Prince Philip, 115 reports of royal quarrels with Lord Snowdon, 17 reports of rudeness to gossip column monarchs like Princess Grace of Monaco, and 92 reports of Elizabeth II being pregnant." — From Majesty, a 1977 biography by Robert Lacey; pp. 286-287, footnote.

It would be more appropriate if enthusiasts of gossip, rumours and urban legends confined their editing to articles specifically about those phenomena rather than cluttering biographies with them. — Athaenara ✉ 00:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think people come to WP to find out the basic facts about someone or something. If they wanted gossip there are plenty of other outlets for that. Steve Dufour 13:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems fairly transparent that something well sourced like that isn't a BLP issue at all. A content issue, yes (if it's not a notable issue, then it's doesn't matter one way or the other). For what it's worth, I have a hard time fathoming how anyone can say it's not a notable incident in Gere's life, or doesn't enhance his notability. It was definitely years after I'd heard the gerbil rumour for the nth time (n is probably less than 100, but maybe not) that I saw Pretty Woman and figured out who he was. Secondly, I'm shocked anyone would suggested that "debunking" the rumour on his page would be insensitive or negative. Every reader who comes to the page will have already heard it - probably half will believe it. If you take a sentence or two to say it's not true, incidentally you're doing Gere's reputation a world of good. Otherwise, half the readers of the article will come away from it believing the incident actually happened. WilyD 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As I expect this to be my sole comment on this thread, I hope you'll forgive my repeating my remark at the RfC. The original source for the claim of homosexuality, a tabloid, had neither reliability in itself (that is, its own record for factual accuracy) nor evidence either to verify the claim or credit its ability to know the truth of the claim. In short, there is no basis to present that claim as true; it is unverified and (so far) unverifiable. None of the subsequent events -- the rumor being spread, its being reported in other media, or the rebuttal by Gere and Crawford -- have done anything to remedy that lack. The claim being both negative and contentious, the lack of a reliable source to verify it is fatal: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. That other media have not followed such a policy does not mean that Wikipedia's editors should not follow Wikipedia's policy. To report such rumors without regard for their verifiability, merely because other media have done so, would fundamentally violate WP:BLP. -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, please notice the last two timestamps above. -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 17:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this is (apparently) directed at me, I feel compelled to respond. At the very least, I think I now understand how people could reach the seemingly bizarre conclusion this is a BLP problem. The point isn't that the allegations should be taken seriously, but that the whole kerfuffle surrounding them is verifiable and notable, and widely discussed, an important (critical?) part of Gere's notability, et cetera. I will say this The rumour should be presented as accepted to be false - this is verifiable from reliable sources. That these rumours circulated and were so widely reported that Gere was forced to make a huge deal of addressing them publicly is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced.

Ask yourself Would Gere rather nothing is said in the article, and half the readers come away from it believing he'd gone to a hospital with a hamster in his butt, or would he rather they all come away from it knowing it's not true? - I find it strange that all the apparently strongest proponents of BLP are suggesting the second is far more in tune with the philosophy of BLP than the first. WilyD 15:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So much for my getting to make just one comment, about why not to include that rumor. Why would it be directed at you? No, if I were going to direct anything at you, it would be an example of the process, so that you could appreciate its unfairness more keenly.

Let's define the word "trostluafed" to mean the most awful accusation anyone could ever be subjected to, worse than the present topic, worse than drug-dealing, worse than child-molestation, so bad your face turns bright red even to hear the word spoken. And let's say that I -- oh no, not I, some anonymous ID out there somewhere -- accuses you, under your real name, of being trostluafed. Well, no evidence provided, anonymous accuser, most people will take that for what it's worth, less than nothing, clearly a false and malicious accusation. But then others begin to repeat the true fact that the accusation was made, and refer to you as "the allegedly trostluafed [your name] a.k.a. WilyD". The fact of the accusation is made part of your biography, so that it sticks to you like mud. In vain do you protest that the accusation isn't true, as your doing that just goes on the public record as justifying the continued inclusion of the accusation in your bio -- not saying that the accusation's true, mind you, merely that it's been made.

Now maybe you can't get really upset about a nonsense word like "defaultsort"-spelled-backwards, but imagine if it actually had been a horrendous accusation that would have everyone looking at you sideways: would you be happy to have that utterly false and cruelly malicious lie attached to your good name, your real name, in the pages of Wikipedia? And everywhere else that might get reprinted, including the computer screens of everyone you know? "Ask yourself" that. For myself, no thank you. That would be turning WP:BLP on its head.

As for the utterly transparent veil of "publishing in order to rebut": on a scale of one to ten, just exactly how stupid do you think we all are? If you bring up the accusation ("some say they're gay"), then mention the denial ("they say they're not"), then follow it with "but they got divorced soon after", you're planting the suspicion in people's minds, even if it wasn't there before. "Some say WilyD's a trostluafed; he says he's not; but every so often he looks out the window at the playground." Interesting how that innocent act of looking out the window becomes fraught with dark implications in this context, isn't it?

That's dirty trickery, WilyD, as others know, and by now, after all this discussion, you have to know it. My assumption of good faith extends to the end of this entry. -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The indentation makes it appear as though it's directed at me. Whether the mention of the divorce right afterwards is inappropriate because it leads the user to a conclusion (and might therefor be original research) is not a question I've addressed, nor one I've meant to. The question I'm trying to address is Does including something that isn't from a reliable source, but widely discussed in a large number of reliable sources, that has been acknowledge (at least implicitly) by the subject as notable present a BLP problem? No, it doesn't. If Everyone and his dog already believed, or at least has heard WilyD is a trostluafed then it doesn't do me much good to not mention it. If my biography, the BBC, and People magazine all think it's notable, then it may be. Do you seriously believe that although we know (through his Times ad) that Gere wants it known that he's not gay, we're more respectful of him if we let readers continue to believe that he is, rather than say something like The rumour that Gere is gay was so pervasive he was forced to address it in a full page Times ad, and was ultimately discredited as false is somehow problematic? I agree the proposed phrasing on the Gere page is probably problematic because of the implications (I rarely get implications), but the generic idea is not problematic. WilyD 17:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"The indentation makes it appear as though it's directed at me." How the hell could my 14:58 comment be directed at your 14:59 comment, unless I could see the future and know in advance that after I posted my comment you would post yours above it and outdented? -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that - there must have been an edit conflict where I reinserted my post wrong. My apologies for assuming it was directed at me. WilyD 14:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Does Talk:Richard_Gere#Specific_proposal, not quoting the homosexuality allegation directly, address your concerns? -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've now replied there, I concur with Ken Arromdee's objections. Other media may offer the flimsy excuse for reporting unverified and unverifiable claims, that they're only reporting the fact that the claims were made, in the hope of evading or defending a libel suit while still using the purported scandal to sell newspapers. Wikipedia doesn't have that incentive, but does have a strict BLP policy, so the same flimsy excuse won't fly here. Likewise for the juxtaposition gambit. Just don't go there. Just don't. -- Ben  ^TALK/ _HIST 18:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sdpate ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.210.4.228 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pat Binns (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This page has been recently targeted by political pundits for their own political agendas, especially by one activist by the name of Mr. Stephen Pate. Mr. Pate has edited and added sections of the article in an attempt to garner political support for his cause of disability rights in PEI. However commendable this is, having helped deal with disability issues personally in my family, Wikipedia is not a political talk page nor is it an rant page. I request that external intervention by other editors and administrators of Wikipedia, as the edit war over this article has attracted Canadian media attention by the CBC in a somewhat negative fashion, and is still ongoing as of April 17th 2007. [26] // ThePointblank 14:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• CBC has run a 10-minute segment on their morning radio show, and they plan to have a TV segment this evening. Regional-only, but still. I'd prefer the article isn't semi'd, as I hope this segment brings new editors from the province to the site... there's way too few currently. -- Zanimum 15:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• The problem isn't publicity; it is great that Wikipedia gets the occasional piece of publicity from the media. What is the issue here is negative publicity. With the current edit war ongoing with this page, it has drawn perhaps unwanted media attention to Wikipedia, and the article by the CBC on the edit war is written in my opinion in a somewhat negative tone against Wikipedia. I am wondering who alerted the CBC to the edit war... Anyways, I am hoping that a solution can be found here. - ThePointblank 15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Dirtybirdy78 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.212.1.66 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.104.60.114 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.104.60.114 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Albert Boscov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Some light edit-warring over allegations of immigration law violations. I removed the inadequately sourced allegation, updated bio tag to living and advised editors on the talk page. // Dppowell 02:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Darius Guppy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article has been a kind of battlefield. Please compare these two versions (current vs. an older one) and assess the merits of the older one. See also OTRS ticket #2007042410014429 for reference. -- Mbimmler 09:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The article needs specific citations for each individual fact. This can be discussed on the article's talk page. Any fact without a citation will have to be deleted. -- Gbleem 10:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keith Henson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article needs a major quality check. His bio data is not verifiable, he himself is notable because is a refugee from justice and the main part of the article contains lots of original research. The discussion should be on the BLP notice board. COFS 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, a Scientologist complaining that an article about a critic of Scientology should not exist. Somehow I don't give this much credence. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, wild, isn't it? If you read my statement I am actually complaining about the fact that the article is not based on verifiable data and if you know your way around a bit in the Scientology critic's scene you'd know that there is a little tendency to glorify their "fighters", especially when they get arrested. All I am insisting in is application of WP:ATTRIB with every article on the WP:SCN watchlist. COFS 22:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps an issue of adding more citations, but not a WP:BLP issue at present... Smee 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Agree. Can we archive this report? 2-3 days without actual BLP concerns posted here indicates there aren't any. AvB ÷  talk 15:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Karin Spaink (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article is 100% WP:OR or someone could not provide RSs. All said, this article needs a major cleanup COFS 23:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The WP:BLP policy is intended to provide some extra protection against corruption of biographical material on living persons with the specific intention to prevent hard feelings, complaints, and worse, on the part of the subject. This noticeboard is intended to help enforce that extra protection. I do not see where this article might cross the line where Ms Spaink is concerned; unless I'm very much mistaken she has assisted in getting the article right. Could you please indicate which parts of the article you think violate WP:BLP? Thanks, AvB ÷  talk 22:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps an issue of adding more citations, but not a WP:BLP issue at present... Smee 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I've posted some background info on COFS' talk page. AvB ÷  talk 07:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we archive this report? 2-3 days without actual BLP concerns posted here indicates there aren't any. AvB ÷  talk 15:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Arnaldo Lerma (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There are ZERO sources for the whole article. from bio data to later activities. needs major fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by COFS ( talk • contribs) 23:06, April 25, 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps an issue of adding more citations, but not a WP:BLP issue at present... Smee 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Agree. Can we archive this report? 2-3 days without actual BLP concerns posted here indicates there aren't any. AvB ÷  talk 15:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Jon Atack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 100% WP:OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by COFS ( talk • contribs) 23:22, April 25 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps an issue of adding more citations, but not a WP:BLP issue at present... Smee 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Agree. Can we archive this report? 2-3 days without actual BLP concerns posted here indicates there aren't any. AvB ÷  talk 15:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)