WIKIPEDIA:BIOGRAPHIES OF LIVING PERSONS NOTICEBOARD ARCHIVE208

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS)

This discussion started out as a dispute into whether it was acceptable to use the Daily Mail as a source on the article in question, and this is the first question that John requests an answer to below. From reading the discussion several times (I have been following this for some time), it appears that general consensus is that whilst very few people like the Daily Mail, there is a belief that it's use in this instance is acceptable. The arguments against its use are that (a) BLPSOURCES prevent tabloid journalism being used as a source and (b) that the material is contested. However the counterarguments were that (a) it's an uncontested interview, which doesn't necessarily fall under the description of tabloid journalism and (b) any editor can claim something is contentious if they wish, so . The overall consensus was probably best summed up by Tarc, who stated that "We're not robots, we can think & reason when there may be exceptions to the project's best practices. There shouldn't be a problem with using the DM in this instance."

The question of whether individual talk page discussions can make exceptions from BLPSOURCES wasn't really addressed in depth (although several comments address this in passing), so I don't think I can pass a judgement on this.

There was clearly no consensus to blacklist the Daily Mail, as consensus was that the DM was an acceptable source for the material in question. Number 5 7 21:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A situation has arisen where there is a conflict between WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and a BLP's own words. The BLP conducted an interview at Daily Mail. There are two points to consider:

Daily Mail is a tabloid journal and is therefore an undesirable or otherwise unreliable source per BLPSOURCES.
The BLP was interviewed by this paper, which is uncontested (not under dispute for fabrication, libel, etc.)

In this instance, tabloid journalism should not be considered. As this was a planned interview by both parties (BLP and source), unless there are accusations of misquoting, fabrication of idea, libelous comments or other forms of created journalism, then the interview should stand as a legitimate source. The BLP makes a statement and the Source prints it, entering into "the record". I cannot see how a BLP's own words cannot be used just because they come from an otherwise non- WP:RS.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This was already discussed here in February, and John's unusual interpretation of BLP was not supported. [1] The reliability of this source has also been discussed many times previously. [2] At no time has the community ever blacklisted the source. However, John has taken it upon himself to blacklist it against consensus, and he has previously done this with other sources, such as People. [3] The community again admonished John for his misunderstanding of RS and BLP. [4] As you can see from that discussion, John's perspective isn't supported. BLP does not and never has trumped WP:V. Because there is nothing controversial nor disputed about the source content here, BLPSOURCES does not come into play. The interviewer is notable and has been recognized for her work by the Society of Editors National Press Awards [5] among other accolades, and the interview itself took place in the manager's office of the subject himself. Per V, we can cite this source, and we can evaluate it as reliable in this context. Viriditas ( talk) 03:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail, like the Sun or the Daily Mirror is a tabloid (actually the Mail is currently the worst of the bunch) and cannot be used to support material concerning living people. BLP provides for using a higher standard of sourcing for articles about living people. BLPSOURCES is not framed in terms of "misquoting, fabrication of idea, libelous comments or other forms of created journalism"; instead it mandates that we avoid using sources with a generally poor reputation for fact-checking to support material on living people. I have emboldened the clause in policy which makes this clear, while quoting BLPSOURCES in its entirety.

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Any editor editing or planning to edit in this area needs to read and understand this clause of BLP. To fail to do so is to run a risk of being blocked. It is important to note that there is no exemption for quotes or for interviews, contrary to what some editors seem to think. It disturbs me to hear editors editing in this sensitive area talk about "libel"; Wikipedia should use sources that do not leave us open to legal action for defamation, for sure, but like on image use policy, the test of whether we can use material is not and cannot be "is it likely that the subject will sue?" We aim higher than that and this excludes the possibility of using tabloids on BLPs in any but the most exceptional cases. These two quotes sourced to the Daily Mail do not constitute such an exception. -- John ( talk) 06:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- John, you just refuted your own argument. BLPSOURCES refers to "contentious material...that is unsourced or poorly sourced". We are not dealing with contentious material, so your continued appeal to BLPSOURCES is disproved. You've been told this many times by a great number of editors. We are dealing with a mundane interview conducted by a notable interviewer in the manager's office with the BLP. The community has consistently told you that there is nothing wrong with this source, so your continued appeal to "contentious" material when there's nothing contentious is simply a case of IDHT. There is no blacklist on using the Daily Mail as a source, and unless you can get one, you'll need to stop removing it from Wikipedia without the necessary evaluation in context. Viriditas ( talk) 07:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  - Viriditas, you've just refuted your own argument. Contentious means "likely to cause people to argue or disagree". [6] The fact that we are arguing and disagreeing about it should act as a major clue in figuring out that this falls into our BLPSOURCES policy. I don't need a blacklist to disbar it; you would need a whitelist to allow it. If you wish to try to establish such a whitelist to allow the use of tabloids on BLPs, have at it. Until then I intend to enforce policy as it is written, not as you would like it to be written. -- John ( talk) 08:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can invent contentiousness just by being contentious. Whether the argumentativeness or disagreement is reasonable is another matter. There's a clue available in the history of this discussion. I hate the Daily Mail as much as any other grunt -- but disallowing it in this instance is ~~difficult~~ impossible to justify. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 08:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

John, I would like to take a moment to correct your misunderstanding of the word "contentious" in the context of the BLP policy, and how it relates to Verifiability. When I'm done, I hope you will admit the errors of your ways. "Contentious", in the context of the BLP policy, refers only to the content of the source, not to editors arguing about whether a source is reliable. You would know this if you truly understand the policy. For example, when the BLP policy refers to the word "contentious" in the above, it alludes to the Verifiability policy, namely "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged". That's what contentious material means. When BLP says that "this policy extends that principle", it refers to "contentious material about living persons", not to "disputes between editors". The fact that we are arguing about your removal of the source from an article has nothing to do with how the word "contentious" is used in the BLP policy, or how it is originally used in the Verifiability policy to refer, in both instances, to controversial content. The key to understanding this concept is this: we are not arguing, nor have we ever argued about problematic content. We have only argued about your continued removal of the source without regard to content, in contravention of consensus. Is your error clear now John, or does it need to be explained to you yet again? Based on this very simple explanation of how the word "contentious" is used in the BLP policy, it should be clear to you now that your understanding of the word is in error and has now been corrected. Viriditas ( talk) 09:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't accept your interpretation of this fundamental policy. You may contend that this material is uncontroversial, but I consider it contentious. An example of the sort of exception I would allow would be where a BLP has written a column for a tabloid, then we could perhaps use the tabloid column as a reference for its own existence, though it would be preferable also to have a more reliable source to back it up. The two key principles which you need to properly internalise are:

BLP is about avoiding even the slim chance of harm to the living subjects of our articles. If there is doubt, we err on the side of not including suspect material.
Tabloids which regularly print lies about living people and then invite them to sue if they wish to challenge the lies, can never be considered as reliable sources for anything but their own opinions. They should never be used to source BLPs, and this is why the policy is framed the way it is.

If you don't understand these two principles, it would be better to stay well away from BLPs until you do. -- John ( talk) 09:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- John, I quite clearly have an understanding of how BLPs work. Unfortunately, you do not, and your continued, ongoing battles with the community over BLP prove my point. If you won't concede the point, then in addition to asking arbcom to desysop you for abusing the tools, I will also ask them to ban you from all BLP articles. But let's stay on topic for now: just now, you've claimed the material is contentious. That's a new one on me, as you haven't ever claimed this material was contentious before, but I think anyone paying the slightest bit of attention will interpret your newfound faith in "contentious material" as furious backpedaling, which is fine by me, as you seem to be warming up to admitting your error. I'll take what I can get, so now that you have formally admitted your error in understanding the BLP policy, what pray tell is contentious about the source? Note, you said, and I quote, "I consider [the material] contentious". If you can't substantiate that statement, then you must concede the argument and admit that the source meets V and BLP, and your misunderstanding of BLP is to blame for your continued involvement in BLP disputes on Wikipedia. Viriditas ( talk) 09:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@ John: Can you please explain how this relates to tabloid journalism (i.e. sensationalist crime stories, astrology, gossip columns, or junk food news)? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 12:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to admit that I'm just about as much of a BLP stickler as they come, but I don't see the problem with this source in this context; I agree that The Daily Mail has to be used with caution, but what we apparently have here is an uncontested interview with the biographical subject used to source basically-uncontroversial facts and statements about his own life. There's nothing about the statements which could be construed as negative or have negative implications toward another living person. If nothing else, this could be said to fall under the exemption for self-published/otherwise-unreliably-sourced statements by a biographical subject about themselves. John, I appreciate your zeal to defend BLP policy issues but I think this is a non-issue. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 12:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

John and I disagree. I find the DM is a generally weak source for contentious claims about individuals (as are essentially all "celebrity articles" found in any newspapers including the Guardian, NYT etc.) but it meets WP:RS. The desire to blacklist any newspaper I find to be unfounded in WP:BLP or any other policy. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Finding something that you and I agree on is a pretty rare feat, I must say. Might be the first time, hopefully not the last. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 12:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

To clarify what I understand is our practice: No source is either totally reliable for all purposes or totally unreliable for all purposes. The Daily Mail and Sun are so unreliable in the way they deal with living people that there is good reason for a general rule that they should be avoided if possible in this area, and I think this is generally accepted. Even for non-contentious material, if a better source is available, it should be used. The question here is what about totally non-contentious material about living people for which it is the only source, such as an exclusive interview. The question here is whether they can be trusted to report the interview properly, and present the material in context. I'm not sure they can, but we need some discussion focussed around this particular point. DGG ( talk ) 12:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- To clarify: "Exclusive interviews" tend not to appear in multiple sources. In this case, the DM is the single and best (only) source for the interview, and interviews tend to reflect what the interviewee says, thus not in the category of being "sensational anonymous allegations" or the like. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  - I'm with DGG and Collect, on the whole. Such sources are to be handled with care, and in this case I personally don't have much of a problem with this source for that factoid. Still, the question of whether this needs a larger (and somewhat formalized) discussion is valid: if there isn't a blacklist, that's a start already. Much of this could have been avoided if a. that discussion on the talk page had been formally concluded by an admin (or if it had been a real RfC, which is what I proposed on the talk page) and b. if Lithistman hadn't jumped the gun (in my opinion), citing a clear consensus when, to me, there was no clear consensus yet. BLP requires a bit more than a couple of editors suggesting that for this particular edit this source is fine. Anyway, if you care, you can read my lengthy comment on the talk page, explaining a. my revert (one single one) and b. my protection. And all of that is really standard fare, in the absence of a clearly established consensus. I see that Floquenbeam has just commented on that talk page and that's where I'm headed. Drmies ( talk) 18:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
So the quibble here is in regards to a source that is generally regarded as rubbish being used as a citation for a quote by the subject on his upbringing? We're not robots, we can think & reason when there may be exceptions to the project's best practices (i.e. "don't use tabloids in BLPs"). There shouldn't be a problem with using the DM in this instance. Tarc ( talk) 13:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

- When it's a quote from a source that is generally regarded as rubbish, how do we know the quote is an accurate one? What difference would it make that it purports to be a quote from an "exclusive interview"? If anything, I think quotes need a higher standard of verifiability than non-quoted material. -- John ( talk) 16:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  Because a source "that is generally regarded as rubbish", is not the same thing as a source that is always regarded as rubbish. Please have a look at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, as it deals with this very issue. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And, conversely, sources that generally are regarded as reliable can sometimes contain falsehoods. We have a substantial article on Criticism of the BBC, yet I find BBC News is generally accepted as a source. And see the discussion on Talk:Nic Potter for an occasion where a usually reliable source turned out not to be. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I think you might be surprised to find that the reliability of sources like the BBC, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal aren't so far from the Daily Mail. For example, just this week, the BBC was taken to task for creating, what appears to most neutral observers, to be a complete and total falsehood about the environmental group Friends of the Earth. [7] Luckily, the Daily Mail was there to accurately cover the dispute. [8] Viriditas ( talk) 00:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

So in your opinion, all sources are of equal quality? -- John ( talk) 05:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like someone to produce an article on BBC News that has the same tenacity as claiming that using Facebook causes cancer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin misconduct

Please note that this has been discussed extensively on the article talk pages and the overwhelming consensus (if not unanimity) of editors is that this source is a reliable source in this context. Please see the following diff. [9] Despite this consensus, admins have gone insane and are actually blocking editors over this. First, Viriditas was blocked by WP:INVOLVED admin John [10] which was thankfully overturned by PhilKnight. But now Lithistman has been blocked by HJ Mitchell. [11] I've reached out to HJ Mitchell [12] but no response so far. We cannot have admins blocking editors for correctly following policy. This is insane and it needs to stop. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 12:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It is proper to require a positive consensus for inclusion of material - and unless and until such a consensus is demonstrated, it is reasonable for an admin to enforce that rule. Do I think John's block was wise? Not the issue. Was it "misconduct" per se? No. There is no "deadline" on Wikipedia, and so the proper course is to determine consensus on the article talk page (noting that consensus can not override policy and anyone closing an RfC or the like can weigh those arguments.) Collect ( talk) 13:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A positive consensus for inclusion of material was established. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It sure looks that way, yeah. That said, obviously Lithistman should have waited for this discussion to wind down, if only to have a firmer consensus to back his edits. But the block is troubling nonetheless. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

By the time this thread was started, Drmies had already successfully gotten me blocked with that... "odd" RFPP request. (Note: I don't blame HJ Mitchell for blocking, as the situation is fairly complex and not obvious at first blush. I do wish he'd have given me a chance to explain what was happening before blocking me, but that's a minor quibble, relatively speaking, with Drmies behavior, both as an admin and an editor. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You were correctly blocked for edit warring, which is what you did--three times you reverted. You didn't need me to do it, and given that you said that there was "clear" consensus on the material, that you say "the situation is fairly complex" is in blatant contradiction. Besides, I don't agree with your suggestion that HJ Mitchell is too simple-minded to see through complex things. But hey, you got to yell "admin abuse", so good for you. And the request wasn't very odd, was it. Article needs protection, RFPP is notified, the fact that one editor invokes BLP was correctly represented. Nothing odd about that. So I don't really see the problem here--and you won't explain on ANI, so we should let this rest, I suppose, and I graciously accept your apology for your unsubstantiated accusations. Drmies ( talk) 00:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, you've edit warred against me and Lithistman in the last month, and yet you were not "correctly blocked", even after a 3RR was appropriately filed. [13] [14] Care to explain the disconnect? Viriditas ( talk) 02:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The material is undue in a BLP regardless of sourcing

Reviewing this big mess, the actual material seems to be based on the actor making a funny claim about themselves. If a celebrity said in an interview "I'm a wild man", then there would be no rational argument that we should include something like "The subject eschews all civilisation, not unlike our earliest ancestors." or any mention at all, really. This is giving more weight to a throwaway comment by the actor than better reliable sources give it. The arguments about reliability are beside the point; we don't include all material that we can verify. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are entirely mistaken, and as such, your argument is invalid. The actual material being used is neither funny nor trivial, and supports important and relevant information in the article. I'm afraid you've either reviewed the wrong source or you are responding to the wrong noticeboard thread. Viriditas ( talk) 00:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Gosh -- the material I read was quite tame indeed. I am a tad strict about BLPs and I find no such "funny claim" in the edit at issue ( [15] does not seem problematic in any way at all). Collect ( talk) 18:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Collect here. What exactly about the sourced material qualifies as "the actor making a funny claim about themselves"? Genuinely curious about this. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the source and the quotes that are the subject of this quest? Elaqueate is right; as well as coming from a truly awful source, these quotes are the veriest fluff. -- John ( talk) 20:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The only "quest" I see is your own. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I'll take that as a "no". That would explain why you were getting the name of the source wrong. Read it, and then tell me why you are so sure these quotes are a) reliably sourced and b) enhance the article. -- John ( talk) 20:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You can "take that" however the hell you want. I don't comment on BLP issues in which I haven't read the sources in question. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Care to answer the question then? -- John ( talk) 21:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I did. You chose to ignore my answer. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

John, Elaqueate hasn't given us anything to go on, and since you have personally taken up his argument against the content (which I'm glad to see as it gives us something to actually discuss) then I hope you will point out directly how the article on John Barrowman uses this source to support "quotes [that are the] veriest fluff". I should note, however, that if this is your only contention, then you should be reminded that a dispute about the usage of material, in terms of whether it is trivial or not, is completely independent from the reliability of a source. Nevertheless, you are attempting to argue that there is a connection, but you haven't yet made that case. So I must ask you to prove your case: what are these exact quotes that are currently being used as trivia from this source? Please highlight them here, otherwise you must forfeit your argument in favor of Elaqueate's position. Viriditas ( talk) 23:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Elaqueate about this, but deliberately didn't include it in my response above to avoid confusing multiple issues. I think that quotations from interviews and the like, about their childhood motivations or otherwise undocumented aspects of their upbringing, are both trivial and self-promotional. The only possible source in most cases can be the person themselves saying whatever they please--or whatever their press agent has suggested that they say. Even when said with the best intentions, the factual reliability of such anecdotes and memories is notorious. If they are used at all, as they might be in the case of famous people where the accounts are repeated by true third party unaffiliated sources,they need to be prefaced by a phrase like "according to themselves" for things such as their first commercial or artistic endeavor, or their family environment, or the inspiration & support given to them by their parents. It's not irrelevant in understanding artists and to some extent other people, but the nature of the information is usually dubious. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@ DGG: could you please address the specific source under discussion and demonstrate how it is being used to highlight what you describe as "trivial" and "self-promotional" content? I am unable to confirm your claim, and since you are speaking theoreticallly, your comments aren't helpful towards resolving the current discussion. You've attempted to argue that there could be a problem with the cited content, and that their might be an issue, but you haven't actually addressed the source under discussion and shown us a problem. This kind of unsubstantiated speculation really has no place here. I would also like to address your unusual claim about quotations from interviews about the early life a of subject. As it turns out, the use of such interviews to fill out biographical details is mundane and quite common, not just on Wikipedia, but in the best secondary sources. So I must take serious issue with your comments, and I must note that your 1) speculation about the source is irrelevant, as you must directly address the source under discussion, and 2) your personal opinion about how quotations from interviews are used in highly irregular, and diverges from both common practice on Wikipedia and in the biographical literature in general. Therefore, we must dismiss your entire argument as a whole. Viriditas ( talk) 23:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, a reliable secondary source can evaluate, and do original research , to establish the veracity of material. We cannot. Therefore, we must not make general claims without sources that actually support them. Quotes from an interview with a person, obviously, represent what he wants to say, and are not a truly independently source, no matter where they are published. If someone is, for example, asked if his family was happy and says yes, does it mean that it was, or even that he really thinks so? (Or in a different situation not involving this article, if someone says he has been influenced by a particular artist or philosopher, all it means is that he wants to say he has been. The only people who can validly say he actually has been, are sources qualified to do original research and make judgements. We can use what somebody says about themselves for the plain facts about his life--and only if uncontested and noncontroversial, not the interpretations of it. As for common practice at WP, I'd estimate that at least half of our biographical articles have content that would not meet current standards. As for the general usefulness of the Mail in any subject, see the various comments below. (But if you'll check my comments on the article in question, I've supported the use of the Mail in this particular case DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Coterie"? That isn't very nice. I note here that as Viriditas apparently thinks that all sources are of roughly equivalent reliablility, we should take his views on this subject with a pinch of salt. Most of us aspire to be more discriminating than that; some sources are definitely better than others. -- John ( talk) 09:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I arrive as the result of a certain morbid fascination: Just what is all the fuss surrounding this article about? (I've not heard of the biographee other than in this article and the talk around it -- only a small percentage of which I've read.) The Mail is dreadful, and infamously open to passing off mere fiction as fact (see the article Daily Mail); but I get the impression that celebs are its specialty. The stream of celeb titillation down the right hand side of the page is unlike (say) the Guardian, the percentage of short paragraphs is higher, and the number of photos higher; otherwise it doesn't seem so different from the cheesiest sections of the Guardian. If the celeb isn't known to have complained, can't we take ostensible accounts of what he said as accounts of what he said? Assuming for a moment that he did indeed say it, DGG is right to point out (i) that we don't know whether he believes what he says; and (ii) that even if he does believe what he says there's no particular reason to believe that it's correct. But I see three general assertions within the edit pointed to above; all three are humdrum (by which I don't mean that they're necessarily credible), and for two of the three the reader doesn't have to look in the reference in order to see that this is what Barrowman recalls/concludes. Yes, it's all pretty worthless, but it's the kind of thing that's routinely worked into third-person accounts (in hack journalism as well as Wikipedia), and it does indicate how Barrowman likes to present himself. If it should be removed, then a vast quantity of similar stuff should be removed as well. (Not a removal that I'd vehemently oppose.)

In general, I'm inclined to take the Guardian seriously (if sceptically) and the Mail not at all. If (or in so far as) the credibility of the Mail is the issue here, then I note that this piece in the Guardian has the man saying the same thing about his eight years in Glasgow. (My own hunch is that this particular bit of the Guardian shouldn't be taken any more seriously than that particular bit of the Mail.) Considering that it only took me seconds to find this (googling "john barrowman" glasgow site:theguardian.com), I guess that the other nuggets people want (if worthwhile at all) can be sourced elsewhere too. -- Hoary ( talk) 07:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If The Mail is factually correct, which in this case it is, then why should another source be used. There is nothing contentious about the statement. Blethering Scot 20:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This question has been asked again and again since February 2014, and not once have we received a reasonable reply. Instead we are told, "It doesn't matter if it is correct, the Daily Mail can't be used as a reliable source". The only problem is, this opinion is 100% incorrect, and our best policies and guidelines don't support it. This opinion belongs to Johh, and his small coterie of admirers who believe they can create a blacklist of sources they dislike without community consensus. Viriditas ( talk) 00:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is nonsense, I'm afraid. There is reliable and multiple sourcing that the Mail is not a reliable source - one only has to look at the number of times they've been forced to retract and apologise. Any swift persual of relevant sources will prove that. This does not, of course, mean that everything - or even a majority of its output - that is printed in the Mail is lies - if it was, the paper would have not lasted as long as it has. But where BLPs are involved, we should not be using it - that is simple logic. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing I've said is nonsense, and it looks like you misread what I said. We don't have a blacklist against the Daily Mail or Fox News for the same reasons, even though both sources have retracted and apologized in equal amounts. Fox News even went to court to get permission to lie, which they are now allowed to do in the United States by law. If you aren't familiar with that case, then you should be, because that would mean every Fox News source should be removed from Wikipedia; however, that's not going to happen. Sources make mistakes, sources lies, whether for political or some other reason. If you are the least bit familiar with journalism, then I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. However, John is waging his own personal one-man campaign against the Daily Mail and against not just our policies, but also against consensus, and this isn't the first time he's done this. He tried the same exact thing against People magazine and failed miserably when dozens of Wikipedians showed up and told him to stop. And now, he's doing it again, this time with the Daily Mail. Again, unless you can find something wrong with the source we are talking about, then there is nothing stopping us from using it. I've already demonstrated that the interviewer has won accolades for her writing, and she's considered a trusted source. I've also noted that the interview is not disputed. Only one objection has been presented so far, and it consists of an editor claiming that the material is "funny", "trivial", and "fluff", all of which is untrue. The material is serious, relevant, and important to the biography. This discussion does not reveal a single objection to the use of this specific source rooted in policy or in some kind of substantial, tangible issue with the content. What we have is one long IDONTLIKEIT argument, that originated with John and memetically spread to his small band of supporters. That argument could be made about any source, from the New York Times (An entire publication called "Lies of Our Times" exists to point out its daily, glaring inaccuracies) to the BBC (who was taken to task for making erroneous claims about Friends of the Earth just this week) to Fox News (of which entire films, books and doctoral theses have been written highlighting its penchant for lies). None of those sources, however, are blacklisted, and there isn't a single policy or guideline that disallows the use of the Daily Mail in this particular case. Creating straw men, distracting the topic by attacking other editors, or cherry picking selective problems with other articles from the same source doesn't disqualify the source. In short, there is no good argument in this discussion that addresses problems with the content nor with this particular usage, and therefore, no good argument to remove it. Viriditas ( talk) 00:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

AS you'll see from my previous comment on this (which I think is below, I've lost track now), I'm not raising an issue with this particular story, I'm just pointing out the more general issues with using the Mail in BLPs - and thus pointing out that using an alternative source is immensely preferable. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I've taken issue with that argument, noting that 1) we evaluate sources on a case by case basis, we don't disallow a major source automatically, and 2) the source in question needs to be discussed specifically, not generalized as to what might be wrong with it or what could be wrong with it. Several editors here have speculated about whether it could be "funny", "trivial" or "fluff", but have yet to actually demonstrate these odd claims, and furthermore, 3) the interviewer has a reputation for reliability, and there does not appear to be anything controversial about the content, and 4) alternative sources are not necessarily preferable or necessary when there is nothing wrong with the source under discussion. Finally, the problem isn't that other, better sources might exist, the problem is that this source is being dismissed out of hand, which no policy supports. In order to dismiss this source and end this discussion in favor of removal, someone has to raise an issue with this particular story. The problem, of course, is that since this issue was first raised in February 2014, nobody has been able to find anything wrong with it. Viriditas ( talk) 00:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed I was pinged on Barrowman's talk page about supporting the Daily Mail as a reliable source. Just to put this into context, my view is that calling anything a "reliable source" by a binary yes / no is naive. My view of the Daily Mail is similar to Hoary's - I avoid using it at a source, as it is well known for having a right wing POV in many of its articles. However, it is also the best selling British daily newspaper and hence something people will aspire to be in, and therefore in certain circumstances, pop culture celebrities do "exclusive" interviews in it. In those circumstances it can be used as a source to clarify additional details of a professional career with care. It should never be used as the dominant source in a BLP, I probably would take a hardline view of not using it for political BLPs except when stating the view of itself, and it should be avoided if a better source becomes available, but some of the pop culture articles are not particularly different to, say, BBC News Magazine. With that in mind, I examined this diff. Are we disagreeing or challenging Barrowman spending the first eight years of his life in Glasgow, or simply disputing that the Mail is a "tabloid", a contentious remark in itself?

Personally I would keep the claim for the length of time in Glasgow (using the Guardian source), but delete the other challenged claim about the views on his family, since that is not an integral part of his career and doesn't invalidate the "broad in coverage" criteria that a GA requires. That would then render any tags moot. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We do not have anything in any policy whatsoever which says "right wing sources should not be used" and, in the case at hand, there is no political connection in the article, making that a silly cavil. The source is an "exclusive interview" and is not "celebrity gossip" for which even the Guardian is not a good source. I tend to not like "gossip" no matter the source, and this is not in that category. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 11:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the Mail is not that it is "right-wing" (in which case one could equally discard the Guardian for being "left-wing") but simply that it has a very long track record of simply making stories up (the famous flood of Romanian immigration, George Clooney's mother-in-law, and this made up trial account this year alone) and then burying a retraction in the corner of Page 29 when they get found out. You'd have to consider whether the Mail actually made that quote up. I doubt they did, even the Mail is unlikely to fabricate direct interviews, but it is certainly better to cite it with another source if the section is necessary. Black Kite (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

An interesting claim-- but I found no examples of the DM "making up" exclusive interviews by well-known interviewers. Might you provide such an example, as the ones you provide are not at all remotely near the case at hand. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Black Kite said, though, as he said, "even the Mail is unlikely to fabricate direct interviews" (they could be sued for libel). In general, I would say all news sources should be approached carefully, paying attention to context, and ideally replaced in the long term by book sources that can comment on situations in a partisan view from an arm's length. Nevertheless, I would maintain that the Mail is a step up from The Sun, whose track record for lying is in a whole different league. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS has been part & parcel of my argument in favor of including the Mail as a source in this particular instance, for this particular interview from the start. I've asked (but not receieved any answer) John how he thought BLPSOURCES interacted with CONTEXTMATTERS in this case. Since I've receieved no response there, I'd be interested in getting views from some of you. The way I see it, CONTEXTMATTERS was written for cases like this, wherein a generally unreliable source publishes something that, in context, is reliable. LHM^{ask me a question} 13:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for John, but just now I spotted a cite to the Daily Mail for Max Clifford's recent divorce and swapped it for the Daily Telegraph. It took about 30 seconds, and avoids the recent kerfuffle we've had over this. That's something seriously worth considering. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My question, though, was how CONTEXTMATTERS interacts with BLPSOURCES. If an exclusive interview done by the Mail doesn't qualify under CONTEXTMATTERS, what ever would? And if nothing from the Mail ever qualifies, then it should be blacklisted and we could have done with it. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If you improved the article in the way I just described, then it renders your question completely moot and avoids drama. Everybody wins. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, sure. But the question I have is policy-related. Is there ever a situation in which you envision the Mail being an acceptable source, given CONTEXTMATTERS? If not, why not just blacklist it and be done? LHM^{ask me a question} 16:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Context matters, of course. But CONTEXTMATTERS is a section of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which is a guideline, whereas BLPSOURCES is a policy. Policy trumps guideline, in bureaucratic terms. On common sense grounds we cannot use material from sources that are generally unreliable on articles about living people. In that sense, the existing wording of BLPSOURCES already acts as a blacklist of this type of source for BLPs. There might be particular cases where we could use extremely uncontroversial material, but why bother? Certainly in this case the sources are non-compliant with our existent policy. And as nearly everybody here has said, this material is highly trivial and does not improve the article. Source it properly or remove the badly-sourced fluff from the article. I think at this point we have a consensus to exclude this material, but let's wait until everybody who wishes to contribute has done so. -- John ( talk) 16:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's complete nonsense. First, nobody has shown how any "fluff" is being used from the source. This was an unsubstantiated claim made up above that was never supported. In other words, nobody has shown there is any "badly-sourced fluff" being used. This is just a straw man. You'll need to actually show that trivial content is being used to make this a valid argument. I should also like to point out that there has never been a blacklist of the Daily Mail. The reason it is rarely used on Wikipedia is because within the last year or so, John has unilaterally removed the sources without consensus from every article. Viriditas ( talk) 00:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with John here. For an illuminating / horrifying account by a Mail interviewee involving serious misquotation amounting to downright lies, try this rather lengthy piece -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The BBC recently did the exact same thing you accused the Mail of doing, and it involved what you describe as "serious misquotation amounting to downright lies"'. [16] According to the Ecologist, the BBC source "is replete with other outrageous twists. There is something alarming when any journalist writes an article like this. It is more alarming that the BBC environment analyst is doing this. Perhaps it is not surprising given that two BBC Trust figureheads of this world-respected media organisation are paid advisers to EdF..it is remakable that BBC Trust members can receive money from such corporate interests - and even advise them on how to use the UK media to clinch one of the biggest multi-billion pound deals in British history." [17] Using your argument, should we now blacklist all BBC articles? Of course not, and this is why your argument fails. Viriditas ( talk) 00:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

In your example Harrabin provided an interpretation of the spokesperson's remarks which could be described as misleading.

The subject in my example had their actual quotes refactored wholesale and was given leave to proceed to a full defamation trial with jury (later settled out of court). Spot the difference. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you missed the point by a parsec. To summarize, the organization Friends of the Earth never once changed their position on nuclear power. However, the BBC and Roger Harrabin both claimed that the group did, and they did so by cherry picking comments they made out of context. Neil Crumpton, arguing in The Ecologist, claims that the BBC may have deliberately done this because of their connection to the nuclear energy industry. This goes way beyond "misleading" and into the realm of government/corporate propaganda. Is the BBC still reliable? Viriditas ( talk) 03:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There is obviously clearly factual matter on which the Mail would be reliable. But for those, it is unlikely that it would be the only source, and could thus be replaced. I wouldn't use the Mail for anything remotely related to a BLP, ever. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I think this discussion has served a useful purpose because it helped to further analyse tabloid material and its potential for inclusion in a BLP. I think that the majority of the material originating from tabloids is probably fluff. But fluff, even from reliable sources, should be excluded from articles. Ergo, fluff from tabloids should be avoided. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγος
πράξις} 17:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

So, not even an exclusive interview, granted only to the Mail, would qualify the Mail as a reliable source, then? That seems overly-cautious. Also, although John claims consensus for removal above, I see nothing of the sort. I see useful discussion, but nothing resembling a consensus that an exclusive interview granted only to the Mail wouldn't qualify as a reliable source for a BLP. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

At least you have the name of the publication right now! In a week or so we will get a neutral admin to close this and it will be up to them how they do so. Meantime, if you have any good arguments or rationales for why you think it is ok to use a rag from the gutter with a reputation for printing lies to support material on a living person on a project that has BLPSOURCES as a policy, why not state them here? It would be more helpful than trying to second-guess what the consensus will be judged as. -- John ( talk) 19:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop with the BS about the name thing. It's unhelpful, and you know damn well that both the Mirror and the Mail were being discussed. I even explained it to you. And given your behavior at that talkpage, and in this message, I have no further interest in interacting with you. Any further responses by you to me will go ignored. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

LHM, they are intentionally baiting you. Just ignore it and address the underlying problem. If you look closely, you'll find they are relying on fallacies and evasions to make their case, which will make it easy to address their arguments. I will begin to do so up above. Viriditas ( talk) 23:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Of fluff and Barrowman

I have no interest (in any sense of the word) in John Barrowman. But I'm a bit surprised to read (or misread) that a statement (which as I've pointed out can easily be sourced to the Guardian) that he spent 8 years in Glasgow is "fluff". And further, that WP shouldn't include "fluff".

I have no more interest in Mariah Carey than I do in Barrowman. But at least I'd heard of Carey before coming across her in WP. I think it's safe to assume that her article here is much examined. Here (after markup stripping) is a not atypical sample of what has survived such examination:

On July 19, 2001, Carey made a surprise appearance on the MTV program Total Request Live (TRL). As the show's host Carson Daly began taping following a commercial break, Carey came out pushing an ice cream cart while wearing a large men's shirt, and began a striptease, in which she shed her shirt to reveal a tight yellow and green ensemble. While she later revealed that Daly was aware of her presence in the building prior to her appearance, Carey's appearance on TRL garnered strong media attention. Only days later, Carey began posting irregular voice notes and messages on her official website: "I'm trying to understand things in life right now and so I really don't feel that I should be doing music right now. What I'd like to do is just a take a little break or at least get one night of sleep without someone popping up about a video. All I really want is [to] just be me and that's what I should have done in the first place ... I don't say this much but guess what, I don't take care of myself."

It's not obvious to me that the article on Barrowman has an unusually high amount or percentage of fluff. I'd read any plea to strip WP of fluff with interest and some sympathy, but suggest that (i) what you or I regard as mere fluff about a given subject is often thought of great interest by those with enough interest in that subject to want to write it up; (ii) a plea to strip it all is better left for another day. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have "an unusually high amount" of fluff. It just happens to have used a source for an exclusive interview that some here seem to want to see blacklisted. LHM^{ask me a question} 11:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an awful quote. Before I go over to that article to clean it up, here is one of the two nuggets we are discussing having on a BLP, sourced to the worst of sources: "Barrowman recalls his family as loving, but strict and mindful of etiquette: always polite and respectful towards others." On a fluff scale of 1 to 10, where would you place it? -- John ( talk) 09:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hard to say. I'd have to be told something like "Given that [quote 1] is 3 and [quote 2] is 8 on a fluff scale of 1 to 10,...". It's pretty bad, but the amount of hot air expended over it seems out of proportion to its badness. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I think it is pretty fluffy and does not enhance the article. As regards hot air, I am a great believer in Winston Churchill's dictum that "jaw jaw is better than war war" and I believe we have made some progress here in regard to whether tabloids can be used to support fluffy quotes on BLPs. Don't you think so? -- John ( talk) 18:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Note to closing admin

This has been open almost a week and has not been active for a few days. I will post at AN soon asking for a closer. Can I ask whoever closes this to give an opinion, based on this discussion and the archived one from February, on:

Whether the specific quotes from the article can be sourced from a tabloid
Whether BLPSOURCES should be amenable to exceptions based on individual talk-page discussions and
Whether we as a project should formally blacklist the Daily Mail for BLPs.

I'll hold this space for the close, but of course it would be fine if anyone else wants to comment, or if previous commenters think of things they didn't say previously. -- John ( talk) 22:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Only one further comment: If we choose to blacklist the Daily Mail (or any other such source that sometimes gives us reliable souring, but usually doesn't) we should probably just delete WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, as such a decision would basically strip it of any practical purpose. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suzannah Lipscomb: removing personal information through OTRS without consensus

Every couple of months, I take a look at the Suzannah Lipscomb page, because it has a history of quite unusual editing. I feel somewhat uncomfortable with some of the changes established there and think it would be appropriate to consult editors elsewhere. As a disclaimer, I am only involved as a spectator, not as an editor: you can check online that the main IP user and I have separate ISPs. I apologise in advance for the detail: this is an issue with a long and factitious history.

Here is a quick summary of the article's history. Since Suzannah Lipscomb was first created, MdeBohun edited the article extensively, apparently at Lipscomb's request. After a while, this turned into removing information Lipscomb did not want including in the article. This led to numerous edit wars over the slightest of details and long discussions on the talk page, before the offending information was removed by User:Mdann52 as part of an OTRS action, accompanied with strong warnings that the OTRS action should not be overridden. Even after this, edit wars over the tiniest bits of quite irrelevant detail have continued.

My reason for concern is that quite a bit of important and relevant personal information has been removed without the opportunity for a community decision: the decision has, essentially, been taken by an OTRS action without consensus. At the administrators' noticeboard (under the (long) title ‘Article whitewashed; when reverted, the whitewashing happens again as a supposedly official "OTRS action" that must not be reverted "without permission"’), a similar complaint has been made, where a company has caused an OTRS action to remove seemingly important negative commentary on its article.

Three types of personal information that were removed from the article are the following:

Lipscomb's name (her birth ('official') name, rather than the shortened version she uses casually (such as on television))
Lipscomb's date of birth
Lipscomb's marriage and subsequent divorce

Other issues were involved and removed, but these are the most basic three that I remember are covered by OTRS action and therefore prohibited from being included in the article.

Regarding birth name, I recall a related discussion at Touré. The subject, Touré Neblett, wrote to to say he wished his surname not to be included, because he considers it offensive (as a form of 'slave name'). The subsequent discussion established a consensus to include the name because of its encyclopedic value. Regarding date of birth, I understand it is quite standard to remove the exact date and leave only the year, as has been done here. I know of no precedent for a subject managing, or attempting to manage, the entire removal of a whole marriage and subsequent divorce from an article. This information, amongst much else, was inserted and removed repeatedly, by numerous editors, before the OTRS action was made.

I am quite neutral about the matter itself, but I feel as if it deserves a wider discussion between editors, instead of an assertion through OTRS. Providing subjects the opportunity to remove large amounts of information on their article whilst bypassing discussion has the potential to lead to real problems elsewhere. 86.133.242.71 ( talk) 00:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There was significant discussion on there talk page about this (see [18] and Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb. This was done completely on BLPPRIVACY grounds. One again, this largely non-contraversial action is being dragged up again and again, with consensus being ignored. Can we please shut this down? -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 05:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: I'd be careful with accepting at face value the IP's claims of only being a spectator. An IP from this range caused disruption last June by opening multiple RFCs, coincidentally focusing most of their efforts on the Lipscomb RFC. [19] -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose shutting down, this was discussed on ANI and it appeared to be a case of an OTRS volunteer (the same one that wants this closed) attempting to force a change, with a message stating "This must not be reverted", which is beyond their remitt (Only WP:OFFICE can do this ). ON top of which, the information is trivial (a link to a site that shows her birth year and month ), and it's not the sun or the mirror. He's also refused to say what the issue is, other than saying it's an OTRS issue, which basically tells us nothing. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:DOB sums it up quite well. At this time, I was mroe causious about what I would and would not say, and as there was a consensus supporting this, then I felt elaborating too far would not be needed. I'd also note that at this time, the relevent policy stated the edit should not be reverted without consulting first, which is what I was trying to get at, however I admit maybe a bit forcefully. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 18:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Mdann52: There was no consensus supporting this as you shut down all conversations using authority which it seems you do not have. Also, one of the major contributors supporting your position was a sock of a indefinitely blocked editor. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've encountered Mdann taking this sort of action previously: removing information following an OTRS request, declining to say why, and asserting that the action cannot be overridden. While I understand that privacy concerns might mean the nature of the OTRS request can't be disclosed, it's untrue to say there's no path forward here. To determine whether it's possible to restore the information, simply start an RfC. If the OTRS volunteer wants to withhold the nature of the OTRS request, then editors can decline to consider it in their contributions to the RfC. In any event, a consensus of editors, as determined via an RfC, can of course reverse the action of an OTRS volunteer. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

List of deprogrammers

(see also the 'Template:Opposition to NRMs' section above - why essentially the same topic is spread over two threads I don't know. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC))

It's not the same topic, these are different articles, and the circumstances are different in each case. Zambelo; talk 04:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have twice removed names from this list where notability was not established, which is a requirement for standalone lists of people. The provided citations do not establish notability. For example, I removed "Wendy Ford" from this list. The only citation provided is for a list of names found in a discarded Rolodex from the Cult Awareness Network. That is not a reliable source, and certainly does not establish notability.

My removals were reverted both times, restoring the poorly sourced material to the list. Rather than remove the material a third time, I am coming here for additional review as to the applicability of WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:BLP in general to this list.

Thank you, Tgeairn ( talk) 02:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Perhaps removing the names you feel are not referenced correctly and then discussing on the tal page would be the way to go, instead of removing most of the entries, which are reliably referenced as notable deprogrammers. Zambelo; talk 03:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP the burden is on you to find and provide sources before you restore material. What you are doing there is the opposite. Find good quality sources that describe these people as "deprogrammers", and that establishes notability for these individuals (both) and then re-add. No one will revert you if your follow that simple prescription. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

All the entries are sourced. Zambelo; talk 05:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first, nor the second nor even the third time Zambelo's been mentioned for the same thing .

Zambelo first run in occured with FreeRangeFrog here where FreeRangeFrog reverted one of his edits on BLP grounds. Zambelo immediately reverted him He was later reported on this very board for it . This lead to at least not one , not two , but three notes on his page explaining why he can't do that. This even got over to ANI. Now he's back here again for the same issue ? Seems to me, Zambelo is exhibiting a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Also note his userpage, where he has the same names up as well, as well a a few subpages of the same thing. I'd say he's been spoken to enough times. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you keep the personal attacks down, buddy? Seriously. This is a different issue, move on. Also, I wasn't "reported" - the issue was being discussed here, I wasn't in any sort of violation. Zambelo; talk 20:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Having looked into this, I have to agree with what Tgeairn, Cwobeel and KoshVorlon are saying - the source being cited for 'Wendy Ford' etc [20] is totally unacceptable as a means of establishing notability, and in consequence these individuals cannot be included on the list without further evidence, per WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, there seems to be a further problem with sourcing, even with these names redacted. In violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, the list cites a '(notarized) Declaration' as a source regarding two individuals. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I welcome editors to remove entries that violate BLP guidelines. You don't appear to have noticed the other sources I recently added. Zambelo; talk 03:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As noted in the other thread, the 'other sources' included the same source (already rejected as unsuitable) cited twice under slightly different names... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This list has been blanked, with a reasoning citing WP:BLPCRIME. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is inexact, since deprogramming doesn't represent a conviction. Zambelo; talk 04:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What? It is the lack of citations for convictions that makes a list implying living individuals have been involved in criminal activity a violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone on the list was convicted of kidnapping, those who were are referenced as having been convicted. There is no suggestion that anyone on the list has been involved in any criminal activity. Zambelo; talk 13:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Zambelo , actually, there are no personal attacks in my last post. Please point out what you believe to be the personal attacks, otherwise, please strike your accusation out using , as accusing someone of a personal attack, when none has been made, actually is a personal attack. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 23:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

rev willie f wilson

Rev. Willie F. Wilson is alive and well, and someone that is biased created a line in his bio based on their own biases and opinion. He is NOT most known for saying their is something wrong with lesbianism. That was ONE message, taken to the media from a member, in response to some troubling issues another LGBT member brought to his attention. In his passion, he delivered a controversial message, that he has since grown from. In fact, the church has hosted various efforts to unite the LGBT community with family members. IF YOU WANT TO EDIT THE PAGE: He is most known for his activism in the Anacostia community. He has known as one of the first pastors to recognize the validity of women in ministry. He is one of the first pastors to host Minister Louis Farrakhan. He was the program director of the Million Man March. Under his leadership, alcoholics and ex-offenders started a church, and it grew to a membership of over 8,000. He is most known for the church initiating pioneer feeding programs, HIV/AIDS programs, youth programs, and many more. The church has raised money and supported a village in Asankragwa, Ghana. The church, under his leadership has helped initiate discussions and created programs on HIV/AIDS prevention and family/communal support, alcoholism/drug use, marriage, relationships, family, prostrate cancer, rites of passage, welfare to work mentorship, etc. Rev. Wilson's church model and philosophy is followed and copied all over the world. Hundreds, if not thousands, come to Anacostia, Southeast Washington, DC from various states and countries every year to study the model, and to see the unique mural that depicts Jesus as a black man, and the disciples as historical black figures (i.e. Dorothy Height, Marcus Garvey, WEB DuBois). Rev. Willie F. Wilson has been known to be a controversial figure, but his heartbeat has ALWAYS been the people. When Marion Barry got out of prison, Rev. Wilson organized buses to pick him up, and helped him return to victory as mayor of Washington, DC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.187.220 ( talk) 18:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. I have removed an obvious copyright violation, and will probably place this in Articles for deletion - Cwobeel (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that there are a number of sources that could be used. I will add the necessary tags to the article's header. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

John Ashton (public health director)

The subject was involved in a puerile row with vapers (e-cigarette smokers) on twitter which descended into obscenities. This merits an minor entry as Ashton was suspended. 2 editors personally involved in the row have been repeatedly editing the page claiming incorrectly that a wp:rs -The Times blames Ashton. I have a Times subscription & it blames the vapers. They have also posted photos of alleged twitter screenshots. JRPG ( talk) 19:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to work out who started it; just look at the dates on the tweets. If 6 September came before 7 September then Ashton started it. This is a noteworthy incident because it's not the first time Ashton has used Twitter to abuse members of the public who disagree with him, which is to say the least an interesting quirk for a man in his position.-- FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You have a clear wp:COI and should not be editing Ashton's article. You deliberately misquote the Times without explanation to boost your argument. The twitter row merits a one line statement at most & if you don't like the Times I have already offered to include the quote from Ashton's employers the FPH which includes an apology. Any more is wp:undue. The section is about e-cigarettes. JRPG ( talk) 20:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I didn't misquote the Times at all. Someone else did. The section is not about e-cigarettes, by the way; it's about the Twitter abuse incident, which is notable because of Ashton's position as head of a public health professional standards body.-- FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

My attempts to correct the misquote were reverted ..perhaps by other vapers. No other wp:rs thinks this row is of any interest whatsoever -except to the parties involved. I find it tedious beyond belief & it has no educational/encyclopedia value. Take your complaints about Ashton to the proper forum -the FPH, no problems in summarizing their views in the article. On the other hand a proper discussion of Ashton's views on e-cigarettes & comments on them might be useful. JRPG ( talk) 21:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've already complained to the FPH and should be getting a formal reply next week. However I think it is of interest that the head of the UK's professional standards body for public health professionals has launched abusive tirades on Twitter at least twice, and has had to temporarily step down as a result. If you don't that's fine, but thus far you appear to be a lone voice.-- FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No doubt the twitter row should be included, I said so at the start. Much happier following your revert. I've added a line of non-controversial material from the original FPH statement to explain the history of the row. I'd like to change the section title to E-cigarettes & twitter row -which is what it is about. FWIW I don't mind being a lone voice so long as I'm supported by the sources and am providing encyclopedia worthy material. I intend to expand the section slightly in an wp:NPOV way once the FPH report is published -using reliable secondary sources. JRPG ( talk) 09:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm not happier. The WHO report is irrelevant to this matter because that's not what caused it. I note that I previously added details on an earlier occasion when Ashton used Twitter to abuse people and someone deleted it. The article is supposed to be informative, not a hagiography.-- FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying earlier. Your dissatisfaction is a direct result of being personally involved -once again you should not be editing this article. The section title should be about Ashton's views on E-cigarettes & how it led to this silly row hence the WHO article is 100% relevant. The life story of very successful academics like Ashton is likely to read as a hagiography though if I'd seen the story about his leave of absence I would have included it. I want to change the section title but have nothing further to say atm. JRPG ( talk) 16:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ashton's views didn't lead to "this silly row". The "silly row" happened because he decided it would be fun to search for people on Twitter then send them abusive messages. It's not his views that are at issue here - it's his behavior and the way he interacts with the public he's supposed to be serving. This started because he singled out people who'd probably never even heard of him and sent them tweets calling them "slaves to addiction" and similar. And, as I said, it's not the first time he's suddenly started sending abusive tweets on a Saturday night, is it?-- FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You are fully entitled to your personal views & to express them to the FPH. Unless or until they are properly cited by a reliable source, they should not be in Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your last edit. I will change the section title but not the existing text in the next day or so unless I receive cogent reasons from a neutral 3rd party for not doing so. Regards JRPG ( talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a cogent reason. This incident wasn't about his views; it was about his behavior. Feel free to keep ignoring that if you insist, but it's a fact.-- FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If you come here to seek input, why are you continuing your dispute here? I will take a look (full disclaimer: I vape). - Cwobeel (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why not to include the Twitter posts, including the foul language as both are reported in The Times, an undeniable RS [21] What is there now speaks of Ashton being dinged by the Faculty of Public Health, but there is no context for why that happened. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cwobeel (talk)

Yes, the FPH article was updated & no longer states the reason for the ‘dinging.’ FWIW I don’t have any personal involvement other than a general interest in health. Without being patronizing, Fergus does seem to find smoking related topics emotive and has been advised to avoid editing in this area though I’d like to get some consensus. I'm happy with HenryJoy’s version [22] albeit with the title of E-cigarettes & Twitter incident. Thoughts? JRPG ( talk) 11:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The FPH website still says that Ashton took leave of absence after using inappropriate and offensive language. That's relevant; his comments about the WHO report earlier the same week are not. By the way this isn't a smoking-related topic.-- FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Think of our readers; if you write that he took leave of absence because of a Twitter controversy, you have to provide context about the reasons of the dispute and what caused it. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was trying to do by adding screenshots of his tweets. It was his sudden outburst that caused this incident; his debates with Robert West and Clive Bates earlier in the week were separate issues.-- FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No need for screenshots. Just describe what the sources say. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Brinklow

I noticed quite some time ago that my wikipedia page was deleted and it is the second time that it has been deleted I am looking for it to be put back as well as directions on how to revise it once it is reestablished. I am a writer and this has been disheartening for me, particularly since it was reinstated quite some time ago.

Sarah Brinklow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.229.87 ( talk) 09:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sara, please read our Notability guidelines. People that meet that criteria can have an article in Wikipedia. If you think you meet that criteria, you can post a message here. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted, based on this discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Brinklow. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Athletics at the !954 Commonwealth Games

The listing of the medal winners for the 880 yards has Ian Boyd in third place which is correct. however the link to give details of Ian Boyd is to the wrong person. the correct Ian Boyd is Ian Hugh Boyd born 8 December 1933 in Carshalton Surrey England. Educated at Wallington C G School Surrey and Oxford University. He ran for Great Britain in the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games where he finished 8th in the 1500 metres final. He emigrated to New Zealand in 1961 where he worked at Victoria University of Wellington.

Ian Hugh Boyd

[e-mail (Redacted)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.51.236 ( talk) 01:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed the Wikilink pointing to the wrong Ian Boyd.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 06:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

How is a "contentions material of a person's life" consider as a biography?

The article on the Gamergate controversy is somehow consider as a biography, and is under editing protection. According to the definition of a biography of Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it's "usually written history of a person's life", a descriptions of part of a person's life no matter how contentious therefore CANNOT be a classified as a biography. [23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exefisher ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy dealing with biographies of living persons covers any Wikipedia article containing information about living persons. This is because biased, defamatory, and poorly sourced information can cause just as much damage in a non-biographical article as in a formal biography. As the Gamergate controversy article deals with information about living persons, it is clearly covered by the policy. -- Allen3 ^talk 11:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact WP:BLP covers any page on Wikipedia, it does not apply just to articles: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies...-- ukexpat ( talk) 11:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As a general note, I'm curious as to why articles on the living are more "sensitive", so to speak, than those on the deceased. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 14:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Legally, discussing the living and discussing the dead are very different things. In many jurisdictions, one cannot sue for libel or slander of a dead person. And as a moral thing, damaging the reputation of a dead person doesn't interfere with their livelihood. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lonely Christopher

This appears to be written by the author himself--and is largely self-promotional/irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.31.146.78 ( talk) 21:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been deleted. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

andre lamothe

Does not meet notability requirements. Reads like a long advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.158.53 ( talk) 19:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you have a point here. I'll do some pruning.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yoel Romero's religion.

Synthesis, poor sourcing, poor writing and undue weight at Yoel Romero in "Personal life". Brought it up at the No Original Research noticeboard, but it may be better here, as there are multiple problems relating to a BLP. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok so I removed a part sourced to apparently a video on a blog. I'm thinking the portion sourced to image files shouldn't be used. I question the reliability of about.com. I went to review the youtube videos but my net connection is lagging. I can only say that they don't seem to bring a copyvio issue. I'm not sure why they have posted the meaning of his name. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 06:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the Personal section. There was a lot of OR there and sources that did not support what they were citing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, looks much better. Hope it lasts this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it any wonder hope rhymes with nope? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed it once again. At this point they are edit warring. I've contacted them to attempt to explain [24]. I've asked them to come here and make their case and get a consensus before adding the material back. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 08:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Katie Jones (web entrepreneur)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

This issue appears to have been resolved. Feel free to remove this closure if further issues arise, or if you feel I've missed something in the discussion that needs further addressing. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Could someone with more experience than myself with BLP matters take a look at Katie Jones (web entrepreneur)? There seem to me to be any number of issues here, but given the number of people who've edited it and apparently not seen a problem, maybe I'm completely up the wrong tree. Mogism ( talk) 19:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you specifically see as a BLP issue there? Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 20:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed one line that was a problem, but do not see any problems with the rest of it. GB fan 20:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

( edit conflict) The sentence "She has not been struck dead by a higher power for irony, hubris, or hypocracy" which has just been removed, the lengthy and unsourced timeline, the fact that article about child abuse and legal disputes is sourced to a blog post, The Register, People magazine and Amazon... Mogism ( talk) 20:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I would just cut the where are they now section. It reminds me of one of those cheesey VH1 bits about what happened to the cast of 90210 or what ever. Not only is it poorly sourced but it's hardly relevant. Ok you can buy her book on Amazon used for a cent. Ok so where do they sale it used for $2? That shouldn't have been put in anyway. The book has been renamed [25]. Also check this out Katie.com. The timeline is unnecessary. You could cut it or check to see if you can find better sourcing. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 21:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have excised the "Timeline", "Where are they now" (both per the above) and "See also" (because the sole link is already in the article) sections.-- ukexpat ( talk) 12:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've cut it back further, removing the unsourced claims and the non-notable personal drama. I also recommend it be merged with the book article as Jones is not notable per WP:1E.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There still remains the issue of Katie.com which is an exact mirror of the Katie Jones as it was when it was brought here. Should it be cut as well or even just moved to articles for deletion or a speedy delete? Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 19:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point. There is an ongoing merge discussion and I've suggested that Katie Jones be merged into the Katie.com article. Please join the discussion here. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I went to Katie.com, removed the timeline, where are they now section and some unsourced stuff. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 04:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Good, I expanded and reorganized the article with better sources and some additional sources which I placed as External Links.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scott Greenstein and some people I haven't heard of

Last time this article was on this noticeboard (this is the third time now), Off2Riorob said he had added it to his watchlist and would help with any future problems, but unfortunately he can't be with us here tonight. So I would welcome help from anyone else who has input on this conundrum.

As can be seen from the article history, there is someone who insists on re-inserting WP:UNDUE material into the article. The material relates to some talk-show host(?) I haven't really heard of, allegedly criticising the subject of the BLP for not letting two other people I haven't heard of into some event. Please opine wherever appropriate on whether this material should be included based on this sourcing. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 23:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, needs secondary sources so we can ascertain significance. The article has a heck of a lot of name dropping in it, though. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

On my list now -- but too many editors regard BLPs as fair game for nonsense :( Collect ( talk) 23:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Depuffed a tad. Collect ( talk) 23:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Giorgio Antonucci | removing of the Start-Class assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

Not really a BLPN issue, but seems to have been amicably resolved. LHM^{ask me a question}

Hello,

the article that I submitted to Afc has been accepted (in July) and classified as Start-Class. I basically translated the Italian page about Giorgio Antonucci (that is not considered a Start-Class article), then I continued to improve the page adding information and links. I am really surprised to see that the page is still considered a Start-Class article, despite the improvements made over the last months.

Could you please revise the assessment?

thanks

Footprintsinthesand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footprintsinthesand ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've upgraded it to C but its marginal. The sources provided are all in Italian and this is the English WP so most of the sources should be in English.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Children names in BLPs

Chelsea Clinton

An editor has put a blanket veto on placing the name of Chelsea Clinton's baby in the article, even though the name of the baby is in the title of a Washington Post article and the name has been publicized by the family. The editor is also edit warring over this issue [26] [27] [28]. Is this editor's behavior in line? How hot is the sun? ( talk) 06:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute about the inclusion of material regarding the name of the new Chelsea Clinton baby (on on the talk page for Chelsea Clinton). Today many articles from trusted news sources released the baby annoucement, and in fact it was a high trending news item of the day. Various politicians or poltical figures have their childrens names (and in many cases date of birth) in their Wikipedia articles from cited sources. I understand in the situation of certain celebrity children, privacy is an issue, however this was publically announced by the family and can be cited. This baby is notable for reasons beyond being born, including the lineage of a political family. Information about the child is being removed from this article by Winkelvi and the user has removed other political childrens names, with what appears to be a misinterpretation of BLPNAME. Can we please make a decision on how the BLPNAME policy effects this article? Thank you. Jooojay ( talk) 06:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, this baby isn't "notable for reasons beyond being born" - she isn't notable (in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term) at all. Notability isn't inherited. And as for this being 'a high trending news item of the day', firstly this encyclopaedia is an international project, and I very much doubt that it is 'high trending' everywhere, and secondly this is not a newspaper, and we are under no obligation to slavishly copy the ephemeral concerns of the media. If the child's name needs mentioning at all, it needs to be justified on proper encyclopaedic grounds, rather than because the local media have run out of more interesting topics on a dull news day. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Andy is right. The child is not notable in its own right. It's not like a child in a royal family, with a position in the line of descent. The child's name would add nothing to the article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not have fill column inches with trash every day. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me see any convincing reason not to name a child within an article—notable or not—when reliably sourced. Winkelvi has indeed oversimplified (and likely misinterpreted) policy- omission is NOT a requirement simply because a person isn't notable. Giving nameless children is vague, ambiguous, and unhelpful to readers. It also certainly is NOT PRIVATE when publicly announced by the child's family AND many reliable secondary sources. Inclusion is valid as long as it is reliably sourced, simple as that. Jooojay and Tvoz are absolutely correct that it is valid to include. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 a child's name is trash news? That is offensive on many levels. Jooojay ( talk) 07:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 07:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll ignore that silliness. Being sourced is a necessary but never sufficient reason to include something in Wikipedia. The default position in Wikipedia is obviously to exclude children's names. See most other biographical articles for evidence. This child would need some special notability to be named here. This child has no notability. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say exclusion is "default"- there's a fuckload of articles which include names of all one's children, age and notability not withstanding. Charolette (or any other celebrity children) not having independent notability is not at all a convincing reason to leave out names. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 08:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, fuckload. I see the level of conversation we're working with now. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME gives us guidance here. The relevant part seems to be: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." So, convince that including the kid's name "is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". She had a baby. That can be news. What she called it makes no difference to my understanding of that fact. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The name of the granddaughter of Bill & Hillary Clinton certainly belongs in Chelsea Clinton's BLP. IAR and all that. This is as close to American Royalty as we can get. I see zippy harm to the baby or the Clintons by including this name which is sourced in every major RS newspaper on the planet. This is taking BLP policy to an absurd level. ABSURD! Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Snort! Chuckle....royalty? Blah...who gives a crap what Princess Chelsea named it. But....the way the name was publically stated and the fact that the name can be reliably sourced means there is no policy that prohibits mentioning the child's name here.-- MONGO 09:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a notable baby, but having a baby is a significant event in this notable person's bio. Relaying her name isn't vital, but you'd have a slightly more complete understanding of Chelsea if you knew what she chose. No harm done, like when associating someone's name in Google results with their notorious murderer uncle (or aunt). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Publically released in a statement from the family? Carried in reliable news sources? There is absolutely nothing in policy or guidelines that bars us from including it. Whether we want to or not is another matter, but I can see no harm in one mention of the name in connection with the birth. We have stacks of articles (including BLPs) where an infobox lists all the children, whether they are notable or not. I see nothing here that makes the inclusion of the name a problem. - SchroCat ( talk) 10:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Marc Mevinzky is also not notable, and the article doesn't mention him doing anything independent of "the couple". If this sort of thing is harmful, we should help him, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Will you folk please have a think about why you're thinking this way? What earthy difference does the kid's name make to you? And to our readers? It's trivia. It's effectively voyeurism. Chelsea is of no real importance herself. Her kid even less so. The kid's name? LOL. HiLo48 ( talk) 10:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

But her gluten-free wedding cake, that's important. And her "more sophisticated look" from Donatella Versace. #5 Girl in a 2002 Tatler magazine list? Damn important, whatever it means. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Poor Chels and Mezza. The name is obviously irrelevant. The child deserves her own article! Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"It's effectively voyeurism"? No, having one mention of the name is nothing like voyeurism, effectively or ineffectively. - SchroCat ( talk) 12:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Then answer the question. What earthy difference does the kid's name make to you? Or any of our readers? HiLo48 ( talk) 12:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not our call whatsoever. We pass that kind of question off to WP:RS. If they, for whatever reasons they deem applicable, widely report the name, then the name crosses all sorts of threshholds for inclusion. (Unless some intentional suppression has been requested by the family or courts or government, as per WP:BLPNAME.) Whether their reasons were "effectively voyeurism" or something else is completely irrelevant to us, and as such, you are not making an argument for exclusion. Choor monster ( talk) 13:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, this tabloid-ish nonsense is infesting Bill Clinton's article as well. IMO WP:BLPNAME is enough of a rationale to leave a baby's name out of infoboxes and such for the time being. Tarc ( talk) 13:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments +policy: The child is not notable by Wikipedia standards; notability is not established by one event. In this case, the "one event" is the child being born. Including the child's name does not help the reader better understand the article subject. The child's name in an encyclopedia article is tabloid trivia worthy of People Magazine, it's not encyclopedic content.

Guidelines found in WP:BLPNAME are clear on this: "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event...When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value."

WP:LOWPROFILE applies: "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event."

WP:BLP1E applies as well: "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."

I have seen this argument discussed many times over the last couple of years I've been here. Each time it comes down to what I posted above with the conclusion being: the names and all identifying information of non-notable minor children are to be left out of Wikipedia articles. In the case of Chelsea Clinton's baby, saying the birth occurred and in the month/year it occurred is sufficient. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever said notability came from a singular event or whether a separate article is automatically warranted. Names are NOT TRIVIAL, and I'm sure anybody would be highly offended to hear that said about their child, and would highly disagree about it being "tabloidish" or "tabloid trivia" or "not encyclopedic". It is NOT indiscriminate, and when prominent political figures like the Clintons become grandparents, society views that as a pretty big deal, regardless of whether or not the grandchild becomes independently notable. There's nothing unencyclopedic with including an important part of a person's life. There is no hard-and-fast rule prohibiting inclusion. If a reader comes across text saying "_____ has a child", he or she will likely ask "what is the child's name?", and it would help readers to simply give answers when and where they want them. Being "non-notable"/"low-profile" isn't by itself a convincing reason to leave out names. If Chelsea on the other hand specifically mentioned she did not want her child's name known/revealed, that would be a different story. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 15:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS wrote: "I'm sure anybody would be highly offended to hear that said about their child". I'm sure the Clintons couldn't care less about what Wikipedia editors are saying about them in a Wikipedia talk page or noticeboard. No feelings of the article subject and associated relatives will be hurt during the course of this discussion. Such emotional commentary is neither germane to the conversation nor is it helpful. You further state, "Being "non-notable"/"low-profile" isn't by itself a convincing reason to leave out names". Policy disagrees with your personal, emotional opinion. You're free to take this up with Wikipedia policy-makers, I suppose, but in the meantime, the policy is what it is. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No no- policy doesn't explicitly state it absolutely should/shouldn't be left out simply due to lack of notability. Also, I was saying Chelsea would highly disagree that info on her daughter is "trivial", especially seeing to it that she publicly gave it out. Calling Charlotte's identity "tabloidish" would likely offend the family. As long as the information is reliably sourced it IS VALID to include. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 16:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/c, responding to Winkelvi above, agreeing strongly with SNUGGUMS) You have badly misunderstood all the policy that you have been quoting. WP:BLP1E and WP:LOWPROFILE, for example, are about whether someone should have a separate standalone article or be part of some larger article. The standards for simply appearing in an article are much much lower than having a standalone article. And they say nothing against including the name. In fact, the policy you quote explicitly recommends that such a low-profile name be an explicitly named redirect to the more general article. This is what is done, for example, with Obama's children, who have done nothing notable. (Although the instant they do something as minor as Chelsea or the Bush twins have done, or even HRC's mother, they will doubtless become so.) Contrast this with potentially being fourth in line to the English throne: that in itself counts as so notable that one doesn't even need a name, let alone a birth, to have a standalone article. Here, no one is suggesting a standalone article, so quoting reasons why we can't have one is simply wasting everyone's time.

As for WP:BLPNAME, I cannot see how anyone can read it as applying to this situation. The purpose is to protect privacy, which simply does not exist in this situation. As for newborns, names, genders, and dates are certainly considered routine information, told to everyone. As for "reader's complete understanding", well yes, the name is necessary: forcing our readers to click on the NYT link (and apparently we can't reference the WashPost article because the title has the name?) or Google for that one last bit of information is ludicrous. At worst, consensus must be achieved, and misapplying policy isn't contributing to consensus. Choor monster ( talk) 16:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

( edit conflict)No, I haven't badly misunderstood policy on this. In response to your comment, "As for newborns, names, genders, and dates are certainly considered routine information, told to everyone." Not in an encyclopedia. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding policy, you have opted for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Not very encouraging. Yes, I typically find children's names of people with in encyclopedia articles, both WP and in-print. Choor monster ( talk) 16:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It is rather silly not to include this reliable information in the Chelsea Clinton biography (perhaps someone else's biography, it would be different but this is not someone else's biography). Sure, we do not have to, but per policy, we apply common sense to such things, and a widely publicized child name is just a standard part of reasonably complete biography for a mother. There is certainly no privacy concern, so all of those objections are without foundation. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we really having a discussion about this? Most bios include names of the person's children, and I don't see why this would be any different. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I would support inclusion. This isn't "trash news" as others have claimed. The birth announcement was covered widely here in America. While I understand the privacy concern, we shouldn't substitute our judgment for that of the child's own parents. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 17:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not the child's parents whose privacy we are concerned about. The name belongs to the kid, not the parents, and it hasn't given permission. It may grow up not wanting to be routinely and automatically connected with its philandering grandfather. It IS trash news. It's trivia. Chelsea herself isn't really independently important. The kid is definitely not. It may grow up NOT wanting to known as Bill Clinton's grand kid. We must leave it with that choice. And Cwobeel, you need to provide evidence that "Most (Wikipedia) bios include names of the person's children". I also say again, what the media says doesn't change our policies, which clearly discourage naming the child, no matter how incapable some here are at reading WP:BLPNAME. And to those saying it's well sourced, that is never enough. HiLo48 ( talk) 17:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The notability of Baby Clinton is not being discussed. What Baby Clinton might want or not want regarding its grandparents is outside our control or concern: the attachment is there and will always be made. Media does not make our policy, for sure, but our policy relies on the media. In particular, the choices that the media make are given great weight. The name is not trash news. That is a rather rude, obnoxious and insulting statement for anyone to make regarding something that most of the media have apparently decided is of interest to their readers. And I'd say you've blatantly misread WP:BLPNAME. It asserts the name should be clearly left out in certain narrowly defined circumstances, and leaves it to editorial discretion in other cases. This is not one of those narrowly defined circumstances, ergo, you cannot raise an objection based on WP:BLPNAME. Choor monster ( talk) 17:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I can, and have. You cannot dismiss it that easily. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You've missed my point. Charlotte's parents are the ones who get to make the call on her privacy concerns. Not us. I'd also suggest you step away from this discussion if you really feel Chelsea isn't notable enough and if you continue to insist the name is trash. Of course, you also wanted ISIS' beheading videos on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure anyone should listen to what you have to say. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 18:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a stupid and pathetic debating strategy. Please stay on topic. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree: Calidum, stick to the topic.

Meanwhile, you have not actually raised on objection based on WP:BLPNAME. You have taken some words from it, and thrown them up in the air, claiming they apply here. They do not.

To be precise. The first paragraph of the policy addresses people known for one event. Baby Clinton is not known for any events, although some people are saying she is notable for "being born", which is ridiculous. (Unlike Louise Brown, whose only claim to notability was being born.) The baby is known and newsworthy today, and will remain known and newsworthy for quite some time, precisely because of Grandfather and Grandmother Clinton. (Just wait for her first play date with Prince George.) And that will never be something she can erase, so all your talk about WP ought to take some moral high ground and respectfully back off makes absolutely no sense. Like you said, please stay on topic, OK?

As for the second paragraph of WP:BLPNAME, the "presumption in favor of privacy" is null and void here. So long as we have WP:RS identifying the names for us, it's explicitly no longer a WP:BLPNAME leave-it-out concern, but a consensus-based editorial issue here, as the paragraph explains. Choor monster ( talk) 18:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The names of notable people's children regularly appear in the articles of those notable people. This in now way violates BLP1E, NOTINHERITED, or any other BLP policy, as those policies refer to whether or not an actual ARTICLE on the child should exist. If THAT were the debate, I would NOT support including an article on Chelsea Clinton's child. But it's not. So, I support including the name. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability is not a criteria for inclusion of content in a Wikipedia article. Notability is the criteria for a subject or topic to have a Wikipedia article. Is a baby and its name significant to an article on Chelsea Clinton or to any mother /father/parent. Apparently so since its included in most WP BLPs where that information is available. Is the baby and its name included in multiple mainstream sources. Yes, and further attests to the perceived significance of this content. We should not confuse notability with significance.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC))

Editors here keep saying things like "...its included in most WP BLPs where that information is available". I have asked several times, and will ask again. Prove it. Too much of this discussion is of the form "I declare this, so it's true". HiLo48 ( talk)

You can't seriously be arguing that the names of children of BLP aren't included in the articles of the BLP, can you? This is a serious case of WP:IDHT. Here's one on Jeb Bush, for example. There are literally thousands of others. 18:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to prove it. Jeb Bush isn't "most". And put-downs like "You can't seriously be arguing..." never help. Of course I'm serious. Let's keep some quality in this discussion. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have unclosed this discussion: it was not signed, no outcome was provided (whose stick? which stick?), and there is certainly no consensus on anything. I see at least three editors who are providing arguments for not including the material, and plenty of editors on the other side. This is not ready for closure. Drmies ( talk) 23:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In this case the name should be included in Chelsea's article. It is true that we often elect to omit the names of non-notable minor children from bio articles. However, the reasons for doing so are obviated when the family itself releases the name, and it is the subject of extensive coverage in major media. The denigration of the coverage here as "tabloid" is inappropriate given that the sources include all the major American newspapers. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 01:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, of course that name is in the media (tabloid and otherwise); mom is famous, and of course the family released it. But the way I read the policy, we should leave the names of clearly non-notable people out of these articles. They are included in such articles all over the place, but by the same token they are also frequently removed from such articles, and with better grounds. Drmies ( talk) 01:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's tabloid. Even the major newspapers have lowered their standards in recent times to retain/attract audience in a dwindling market. It's the child's privacy that matters here. We have policies. We don't have to lower them just because others lower theirs. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Tabloid!? HiLo, you know as well as everyone else that major newspapers are quite different from tabloid journalism AND have much higher integrity. The idea of privacy is entirely moot when the family publicly announced it, so that argument is pretty much nullified. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 01:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the Clintons happen to be a particularly publicity seeking family? They seek all the publicity they can get, for obvious political reasons. We don't have to play that game. Our policies say we should give the kid privacy. I have made my point about newspapers. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, the ONLY reason I know that Chelsea even had a kid is because of Wikipedia. It isn't news outside the USA. (Well, not in the outlets I see regularly.) The kid's privacy is safe there. Well, it was,, until some excited Wikipedians chose a global encyclopaedia to announce the kid's birth AND name. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Policies do not explicitly say it is a requirement per se to "give the kid privacy". In short, such information is NOT private at all when widely known to the public. If it was private, then society likely wouldn't have even known about her existence. As long as the information is reliably sourced, inclusion IS valid. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 02:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line: if the child/grandchild is non-notable and a minor, WP:BLPNAME is clear: naming them doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject, we aren't writing a tabloid or newspaper/magazine article, therefore, privacy for minor children is preferred for encyclopedic content. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not an absolute requirement, though. In fact, given how one's child(ren) make up an important part of his/her life, leaving it out wouldn't really help viewers. If a viewer reads "_____ has a child", he or she will likely seek to know the child's name. For the reader's convenience, it is much simpler for them to provide the answer right then and there. No, policies DO NOT EXPLICITLY give a preference. And it is NOT PRIVATE AT ALL when known to the public AND publicly announced by family AND is reported in reliable sources. Adding such detail doesn't by itself constitute a tabloid, magazine, or newspaper. It IS encyclopedic to include as long as it is reliably sourced. The idea of privacy is oxymoronic when the public already knows about such detail. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 02:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You really don't need to shout. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

non notable minor, no value to article or reader. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it IS of value. Stating someone has a child and not giving any further detail is unhelpful and vague to readers. One's children are quite important to a person's life, unless said person simply doesn't care about his/her children. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 02:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

that some people dont feel satisfied until they have all the personal details about everything is why tabloids exist. As an encyclopedia, we serve a different function.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS wrote: "One's children are quite important to a person's life," Oh my gawd. How many times do you have to be reminded that this is an encyclopedia and touch-feely thoughts of "I may hurt someone's feelings by leaving their child's name out of an article" don't apply here? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't so much a "hurt someone's feelings" as it is A: children are a major detail about the person, especially when aiming for a comprehensive article (with Wikipedia's definition of "comprehensive" meaning "it neglects no major facts or details") B: said person would disagree that it is "trivial" or "not important". There's absolutely nothing un-encyclopedic about including a major aspect unless it is unsourced/poorly sourced. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 02:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Good grief. This entire thread is basically one small group of editors applying a draconian (and wrong) view of WP:BLPNAME in an attempt to (for whatever reason) keep the names of a BLP's children out of an article, when the BLP herself has released the name of the child. I could list hundreds of BLPs where names of non-notable children are included in the BLP's article. And if you look at the talkpage, the ENTIRE argument from BLPNAME has just been completely blown out of the water. There's no reason not to include the well-sourced name of Chelsea Clinton's child--or Jenna Bush's, for that matter, as one of the editors above is trying to make some kind of WP:POINT by going to THAT article and removing her child's name. This really needs to stop. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

To say that there's no reason is insulting to those who have presented some reasons. You may not those reasons are important enough, but they exist. Please think of using manners here. And stop using such shallow argument. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning has been shot all to hell at both the talkpage and here. Completely taken apart as without merit. But you didn't hear that, so you keep accusing others of bad manners and such, in lieu of explaining how including the well-sourced name of Chelsea Clinton's child in her article violates BLPNAME. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, you've been dismissive yourself towards others' rationales on multiple instances here, so there's hypocrisy on your part. Just saying. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I will dismiss particularly foolish and dishonest editing. HiLo48 ( talk) 04:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I'd much rather deal with someone who swears like a sailor than someone who begins hurling around insults once their arguments are put to bed. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Me too. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Mention by name Quite properly, we have biographical articles about the three grandchildren of Abraham Lincoln, including the boy named after him Abraham Lincoln II who died at age 16. We have a biography of a JFK child who died shortly after birth. None of them accomplished all that much, but are notable as descendents of a great president. We have articles about many parents and grandparents of U.S. presidents. I am not arguing for an article about Charlotte at this time, nor Sasha Obama nor Malia Obama. But refusing to mention these presidential offspring and grandchildren, discussed widely in reliable sources, and mention of which is entirely approved by their parents, is excessively pedantic and unsupported, in my view, by policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's just more WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I can't imagine why most of those articles exist. Might look at nominating some for deletion. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Given your behavior in this discussion, such a WP:POINTy display from you would not surprise me in the least. (And if you're going to keep citing OTHERSTUFF, you should really read it. It doesn't say what you think it says.) LHM^{ask me a question} 08:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you get me mind reading lessons too? HiLo48 ( talk) 08:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes to the baby's name since the parents of the baby prominently published the name. Not only do we have strong arguments for inclusion of the name, based on very high quality sources, and many positive precedents, but HiLo48 let slip the true nature of the opposition with the offhand comment "Chelsea is of no real importance herself." That shows an ideological opposition rather than a logical one. Binksternet ( talk) 08:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? I, for one, have no idea what you're talking about. Care to elaborate? Which ideology? HiLo48 ( talk) 08:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The comment "Chelsea is of no real importance herself" shows you shifting into an emotional position, the abandonment of logic for a snide slam against the bio subject. If you really thought Chelsea was not important you would nominate her biography for deletion, which would never fly, and I'm sure you know that. So you've hurt your otherwise logical arguments, saddling them with emotional baggage. Binksternet ( talk) 15:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In what way is Chelsea Clinton important? And again, how is my position ideological? HiLo48 ( talk) 21:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a better vantage point than I do to judge how your position might be more ideological or emotional than logical. Regarding Chelsea's importance to the world, she is commonly considered future presidential material in the U.S., for instance by these sources: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] In the interim, she is stepping up to take over the titular leadership of the Clinton Global Initiative so that Bill and Hillary can be freed from the constraints of being so closely associated with that fairly powerful NGO while simultaneously promoting Hillary as a presidential candidate. Binksternet ( talk) 21:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So we include the kid's name because its mother might be important one day? No. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And this ideology thing. It's you who said my position was ideological, not me, so it's you who must explain that statement. How is my position ideological? HiLo48 ( talk) 21:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There simply is no basis to keep this information out. As already noted, privacy is no issue where the fact is repeatedly well sourced. Moreover, the argument that it is not encyclopedic has no legs, as that does not accord with the meaning of encyclopedic. As for unnamed "good reason", none has been brought forward -- it is informationally part of her biography (see, eg. [35]). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Many reasons have been given. You are free to disagree with them. But obviously many disagree with you. That contradicts "There simply is no basis to keep this information out." Privacy IS an issue. Wikipedia is long term and global. The current media frenzy in the USA is neither. Nobody has asked the child if it wants its name in a long term, global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, disagreement alone does not form a basis in reason. It is unreasonable say that a newborn should be asked anything. Privacy is not an issue when the matter is already well published. Indeed, I already linked to a long term and globally published biography of Chelsea Clinton that has this well documented fact in it. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 21:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Care to post that link again please? (There's a lot of crap been posted here, and I missed that.) 22:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is linked in my comment of 12:46 that you responded to. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 22:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Support inclusion of name, as (i)being extremly well published and as such any privacy concerns are de facto moot (ii)of encyclopedic value, since last time I checked names, just as dates and locations, are encyclopedic information. We don't talk of " that President of the United States", we talk of George Washington or Richard Nixon. Names are the essential identifiers we use to look for something. In some cases we can avoid naming people due to privacy concerns, thus failing our encyclopedic mission in the name of some greater good, perhaps, but in this case -again- those concerns do not exist. Finally, given that BLP concerns are out of the question, then (iii) we do not go around deciding to remove sourced and germane information because "it is trash", since we are not censored.-- cyclopia ^speak! 13:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring all that has been properly said about the privacy concerns.The Washington/Nixon analogy is about as irrelevant as it could possibly be. Nobody is censoring anything. HiLo48 ( talk) 17:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been "properly said" about actual "privacy concerns." You've just jumped from blue link to blue link, trying to find any rationale you might be able to twist unrecognizable to support your campaign against inclusion of Chelsea Clinton's baby's name. There are no "privacy concerns" in this case, as the parents have made the name widely known, and various reliable sources have published it. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Support including the child's name. This is standard practice where it can be reliably sourced, and done in numerous FAs. Just because the child is not (yet) independently notable, doesn't mean her name is not worth including in her mother's article. What importance is the name? Of what use? How about actually telling people the child's name? There are people who look to Wikipedia just for such information. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You people all have WAY too much time on your hands. No one in the real world actually gives a rat's behind about "BLP", "NPOV" or any of the other nonsense that's been discussed here. Mention the kid's name or don't. I and 99.99999999999% of people in this world don't care one way or another. I urge you all to do something that is actually productive in this life, like teaching illiterate children to read or keeping elderly people company or any of a hundred things. This "conversation" has long since passed the point of being absolutely absurd. To quote William Shatner "Get a life!" 66.67.32.161 ( talk) 21:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Jenna Bush Hager

A very similar issue to Chelsea Clinton's baby being deleted from the Chelsea Clinton article, is now happening to the Jenna Bush Hager article with user Winkelvi taking a stand that the discussion here did not reach a consensus or decision noted about the inclusion of baby names. This behavior seems unproductive at this point and he is not seeking community feedback. Jooojay ( talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, he's now edit-warring on Chelsea Clinton, just saying BLP over and over again. Choor monster ( talk) 20:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but such actions are now bordering on WP:POINT. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 20:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The only arguments put forward are a blatant misinterpretation of BLPNAME, that has been roundly refuted above, and the sticking of one's fingers in the ears after that argument has been refuted. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I neither know nor care who Jenna Bush Hager is, but I just saw that claim of "roundly refuted above". That is simply wrong. HiLo48 ( talk) 23:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Jenna Bush is one of the daughters of George W Bush. I assume that the article is being offered for purposes of comparing what our general practice is. I suspect you would be hard pressed to find a recent President whose grandchildren are not named. Jack Carter (politician) names Jimmy Carter's grandchildren. Jason Carter (politician) names the great grandchildren of Jimmy Carter. Michael Reagan names President Reagan's grandchildren. Jeb Bush names grandchildren of George H W Bush. -- B ( talk) 02:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Very true. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 02:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue is in regard to non-notable minor children and grandchildren. Not all children and grandchildren.

Bottom line: if they are non-notable and minors, WP:BLPNAME is clear: naming them doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject, we aren't writing a tabloid or newspaper/magazine article, therefore, privacy for minor children is preferred for encyclopedic content. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line, you are wrong, you don't listen, and this is becoming tendentious, and pointy - Cwobeel (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You're very needlessly rude. In fact, an admin at the 3RR noticeboard has pointed this out. I guess you missed it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it says nothing like that. "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" (none of that stuff is the case here) "... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." You're trying to pretend that only the second part of that sentence is in there without the first part. I'm about as pro-BLP as they come, but not including names of a President's grandchildren is silly. You don't have a more public family (at least in the US) than a President's family. -- B ( talk) 02:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, B. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 02:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(Insert scoffing here) Not including names of a President's grandchildren is silly? What possible value could including the names of someone's grandchildren bring to an encyclopedia article (unless we're talking ancestral line importance)? The answer: No value whatsoever. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

While it might not necessarily belong in the President's own article, it most certainly DOES belong in the article on the President's child. This is what I believe B meant. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless they have done something significant in their own right, I cannot see why a President's child is notable, let along that person's children. Having a famous parent does not make one notable. The fact that it's done in some other articles doesn't convince me I'm wrong. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever said the child was independently notable, only that articles should contain details on their children. It doesn't have to be extensive, but there should at least be something (i.e. name and birthdate). Otherwise, the article is incomplete. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that makes no sense. An article on subject A is incomplete without the name and birthdate of non-subject B? The operative phrase in BLPNAME is "editorial discretion", and really, this is where I, and apparently a whole bunch of others, draw the line. You can't simply dismiss that as "oh those idiots didn't hear that/had their fingers in their ears/justdon'tlikeit" or some other cute bluelinked phrase. What on earth could the birthdate (and name) add for the reader of this or other articles, unless we're just another TMZ? Drmies ( talk) 04:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry- I wasn't being dismissive. What it would add is a significant time and event of the person's life (unless subject does not hold parenthood in high regard). Including it in no way makes Wikipedia like TMZ unless it was unsourced/poorly sourced. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User:SNUGGUMS, my children are very important to me. To me. And at some point I aim to be notable (via PROF, hopefully, not via GNG), and at that time you better leave my kids out of it. Those events are of enormous importance to me and, I would assume, to Chelsea Clinton. But that doesn't make them important to the reader, and it doesn't take away from the injunction we have for editorial discretion, including such things as full names and birthdates. That such can be found in other ways by those who care is irrelevant: we have removed, even rev-deleted material on living people that was all over the internet for BLP concerns. Note that (for me) the sourcing, as I said above, is not the problem--rather, my TMZ reference refers to readership and what we want ourselves to be. There are lots of things that are well-referenced that we don't report either; it's a matter of taste (in K-pop, performers have designated colors, and apparently their bloodtypes are important to the fans). You and I (and others) can disagree on what is in "good taste" or not, but you cannot simply say "oh that's your opinion" because that applies to yours as well: there is no iron-clad reason why we should include that information. After all, she's not notable because she had a baby. Hell, my wife had three, all of which mine (she says), and neither that, nor the fact that those events were momentous for us, rise to the level of notability. Also, my babies were better-looking than hers. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 05:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether such information should be included depends on how much said person wants to reveal. In instances were one intentionally keeps information on family secret from the public, it wouldn't be included. I wasn't saying to have things like bloodtypes in articles, only that including simple detail like who the child is and when he/she was born isn't a harmful idea unless parent specifically objects to society knowing about it. The only ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT is that details need reliable sourcing. Aside from that, there are no hard-and-fast requirements for inclusion of detail. Also, it's not like I would post someone's home address or email or anything. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 06:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS wrote: "Nobody ever said the child was independently notable". Which, on its own, is the very crux of this whole matter. If the child is not notable, we have no reason or need to name them. Just because their name appears in reliable sources doesn't give a reason to include them in an encyclopedia article about someone else. Both of these points have been mentioned several times in this noticeboard discussion as well as all the others with the same theme. The child is a minor and non-notable. Their name and other identifying information is not of any import in an encyclopedia article. That's exactly what WP:BLPNAME already tells us. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you believe the purpose of the rule is? The purpose of the rule is to have a respect for privacy - not anything having to do with notability. We don't give family and personal details of marginally notable people out of a respect for their privacy. We don't want someone who doesn't like their local weatherman's forecast to come here and find out where he lives, what his kids' names are, and where they go to school. Privacy is not an issue in this case, though, because the names are widely known and publicized. -- B ( talk) 04:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

But the kid is still no more than marginally notable, so there is no point including it. HiLo48 ( talk) 04:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a convincing reason to leave such detail out- omission would make the article incomplete. Also, it is not private when publicly known within society. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

B wrote: "The purpose of the rule is to have a respect for privacy - not anything having to do with notability." First of all it's not a "rule", it's policy. In answer to your question, the purpose is not just "privacy" but keeping out non-notable and non-important trivia found in publications with little to no editorial discretion out of an encyclopedia article. It's become clear to me today that (a) people editing Wikipedia have no concept that it's supposed to be an encyclopedia they are writing, and (b) there are still a number of people editing who have serious reading comprehension problems when it comes to policy - in part because they don't realize they are editing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper/tabloid/magazine article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, BLPNAME actually does not explicitly say such detail has to be excluded simply due to being a non-notable minor. That's a very dogmatic oversimplification. It IS of import because it is an important part of the parent's life. What it actually says that such detail, if included, must be reliably sourced. It doesn't help readers to just give vague detail. So far, I haven't seen any convincing reason not to include it. Given how Wikipedia's best content is to be comprehensive, omission would prevent this from being top-notch as it is a major fact/detail. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're arguing against something nobody has actually said there. HiLo48 ( talk) 04:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

He is arguing against those of you who are oddly claiming that a widely-known name of a BLP's baby shouldn't be included in that BLP's article, even though that goes against how we do things on BLPs where children's names are widely-known. What hes actually doing is arguing against something you all have been claiming throughout the article: that the article shouldn't disclose the name of a child that has been covered in many major secondary sources. As the specious WP:BLPNAME claims have been completely refuted, the argument against inclusion is left with little more than, "well, I don't think it should be included, and so I'm going to take it out anyway. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The WP:BLPNAME claims have NOT been completely refuted. And unfortunately, you chose to lie about the thread above as part of your evidence. I suggest that you should 1. apologise for your lie, and 2. just keep quiet for now because of the embarrassment you have caused on your side of this debate. HiLo48 ( talk) 04:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they have. Just because you have your fingers in your ears doesn't mean people haven't torn those claims to shreds. And I have not "lied" at any point--I find it quite hypocritical that someone who was complaining about someone using the term "fuckloads" above is now accusing me of "lying", demanding apologies, and telling me to "just keep quiet." LHM^{ask me a question} 05:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you lied and are still doing it. Maybe it was unintentional, in which case, one can only wonder why? HiLo48 ( talk) 05:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

One can not unintentionally "lie." A "lie" requires knowing X to be false, and still claiming it to be true--an act of will against the truth, once one knows what the truth is. That's why, even as you dig your heals in regardless of the evidence, I don't think you're "lying", as much as you're just being willfully obtuse, which is different. But it's just sort of sad to watch you insist that I am lying, when I've posted swaths of examples showing that what I claim to be true actually is true. LHM^{ask me a question} 12:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You said, right near the start of this thread, that the argument around BLPNAME "been roundly refuted above". That was a lie. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the argument put forward above, "well the kid isn't notable." Certainly not, and no one's claiming she is. But her existence and her name are notable in relation to her mother's article. And the names of many non-notable people appear in the articles of BLPs. We nearly always list the names of a BLP's non-notable parents, for example. A person doesn't need to be notable in their own right for their name to appear on Wikipedia, particularly when they are part of a notable person's immediate family. (Note: I'm not arguing for ARTICLES on those people, just noting that they are nearly always MENTIONED in the articles of the people to whom they are closely related, or to events in which they participated. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A BLP's non-notable parents are never minors. HiLo48 ( talk) 04:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So? They're not notable, yet their names appear in the articles. "The kid isn't notable" was an argument put forward above. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. You misunderstood my post. The bit about minors was the important bit. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It was? Where is that in policy? At the moment, it appears to be your personal bugaboo. Choor monster ( talk) 13:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You are failing to comprehend. There is no point me wasting more time on you. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to be comprehended. You have not made an argument based on policy. You have made an argument based on your personal wishes. If there is some aspect of policy which singles out "minor children" in this situation, while permits "adult parents", you have not identified it, and now you are just running away, unable and unwilling to admit you are the one wasting everyone's time. Choor monster ( talk) 11:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made considerable argument based on policy. There is no point me wasting more time on you. HiLo48 ( talk) 17:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It would not be a waste of time if you identified the alleged part of policy where "minor children" whose names have been widely publicized by the parents and MSM are singled out for exclusion. Just repeatedly running away is the same as conceding that there is no such policy. Choor monster ( talk) 13:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusion of the names of BLP's children in the article of a BLP

Here is a partial list, on just a few of the articles that sprung immediately to mind: Angelina Jolie, Lisa Kudrow, Jeb Bush, Katie Holmes, Barack Obama, Tom Cruise, Michelle Obama, Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, and the list could go on and on. In addition to WP:BLPNAME being utterly shredded as a means for deleting the names of a BLP's children at the talkpage of one of the articles, as well as above, precedent shows that we don't have a problem including such information when it is well-sourced. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Much agreed. The key is reliability of sources. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Sourcing is never enough. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS negates the first post above. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you read OTHERSTUFF all they way through? It is specifically NOT an argument against using precedent, as you seem to believe. Given how insulting your posts have become above, it may be time for you to step away from the discussion for a bit. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's not even original. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In the future, I'd suggest reading the essays you cite, to at least make sure they support the point you think you're trying to make. OTHERSTUFF actually makes the case that precedent DOES matter, in some cases. LHM^{ask me a question} 07:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. For a prime example, see Ted Cruz. The names of his children can not be well-sourced, and thus are properly excluded from the article. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

( edit conflict) LHM, I refer you to the following (also only a partial list of more examples of the same): [36]; [37].

Your understanding of WP:BLPNAME is incorrect. Moreover, saying that we've done it before isn't a valuable or valid argument. Plenty of people run stop signs everyday, too. That doesn't make it an acceptable or wise practice or erase the "policy" regarding such an act. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep repeating WP:BLPNAME over and over, even though it's been utterly refuted as an argument against inclusion at the talkpage. I mean literally, it's been point-by-point debunked as applying in this case. BLPNAME does not mean what you think it means. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been "refuted". (Hardly the right verb, but if you like it, I'll go along with it.) HiLo48 ( talk) 05:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You must not know what the word "refuted" means, either. The use of BLPNAME to try to remove all names of children from BLP articles HAS been refuted. (Note: I'm not saying the that BLPNAME has been refuted, just that the bastardized way you guys are trying to USE it has.) LHM^{ask me a question} 07:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And you want this to be a clear-cut "run the stop sign" type of case, but it's not. Inclusion of the names of a BLP's children is acceptable in some articles, but not in others. It all depends upon the sourcing available. And no matter how many times you repeat it, BLPNAME does NOT refute that. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been refuted. There are a few who (like yourself) have claimed it's been refuted. Saying it's so over and over again doesn't make it true. I keep repeating policy because it is what it is and it is real and right. How anyone can believe policy can be "refuted" is beyond my understanding (unless one's thought process goes into the realm of bad faith, that is). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT what BLPNAME says. You are willfully misinterpreting it. Well-sourced, made public by the parents, cited all over the world, is in no way defamatory and in no way in violation of BLP policies. And to add to LHM's list above - and this could go on for days - of particular relevance to Presidential daughter Chelsea Clinton would be Jenna Bush Hager, Caroline Kennedy, Lynda Bird Johnson Robb, Amy Carter, Susan Ford, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Luci Baines Johnson, Margaret Truman and more - and let's expand that list to the daughter of someone who actually was elected President - Karenna Gore, and what the hell, how about some Presidential sons' BLPs like Jack Carter (oh my, even names his step-children), a Presidential grandson Jason Carter, and some wannabe Presidential children like Tagg Romney and Vanessa Kerry. Shall I go on? This is idiotic, incorrect, and a tendentious waste of our time. It has NOTHING to do with BLPNAME. Stop this disruption. Tvoz/ talk 06:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to call this "idiotic", Tvoz, but yes policies don't explicitly prohibit including such detail. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 06:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

More precedents: Denzel Washington, Tom Hanks, David Letterman, Craig Ferguson, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and the list could go on and on and on... Precedent should never be simply ignored like a few editors above are recommending. LHM^{ask me a question} 07:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia could finally decide to follow policy, and not write so much about non-notable people, rather then be swayed by the whims of excitable and excited editors. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, you could realize perhaps you don't understand policy in this matter, and that it could possibly be that a decade plus of WP practice is right and you are wrong. LHM^{ask me a question} 08:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Policy does not forbid or even discourage writing about non-notable people. It forbids having articles about them. Anyone mentioning a need for "notability" here as grounds for exclusion of the name does not have a clue about policy. Choor monster ( talk) 12:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Our fundamental goal here is to create a quality encyclopaedia. Personal details of non-notable people, like me, and you, and this baby, aren't part of that. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK already, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no stick. And anyway, I'm having too much fun. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least now we know that WP:POINT without a doubt applies to you, and that we should stop giving you the attention you crave. This is my last reply to your nonsense. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We really are working at different levels here. That was my poor attempt at a joke. You didn't get it. Not your fault. But that it led to further insults from you was unfortunate. HiLo48 ( talk) 23:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48: you responded to my statement about policy with your personal opinion about what really belongs in a "quality encylopaedia". Essentially no one here shares your opinion. Meanwhile, you did not address my statement about policy. Again, rather than admit that yes, you have misunderstood policy, you are pointlessly running off in some irrelevant direction, merely wasting everyone's time. You're posting here because it's fun to share your contrarian opinions? You're a self-admitted troll. Choor monster ( talk) 12:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

When did you last read the pages of a quality encyclopaedia apart from Wikipedia. (Which is sadly becoming more tabloid every day itself.) Maybe Britannica? The print version, of course. HiLo48 ( talk) 17:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Complete non sequitur, as it is utterly irrelevant to this discussion what makes you sad, what you think about Brittanica (whose online version is not great at all), or whether you prefer print encyclopedias to online ones. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I love it when you effectively repeat what I've said as a way of arguing against me. (Agreeing about the print version of Brittanica, for example.) I am interested in making Wikipedia a quality encyclopaedia, not a collection of trivia. This is a fundamental goal of the project. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding detail on one's immediate family is NOT trivia. You know that, and please do not condescend this website or its editors. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 19:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME does not apply to Chelsea Clinton's daughter, line by line

I posted the following on Talk:Chelsea Clinton while the above was closed.

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.

Actually, CCM is not being "discussed" at all, let alone in terms of a single event. She is mentioned, being a highly relevant bit of her mother's bio. I believe this is different enough to matter, but if not, note that it merely says "Caution should be applied". Not, do not name.

When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

Totally irrelevant here. Even so, in such an extreme case, policy is merely "it is often preferable to omit it", not obligatory policy.

When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

This is just a weight issue, but apply WP:SNOW: her name will get more than a "brief appearance" over time. It will appear again and again.

Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

The daughter is of course directly involved in the article's topic.

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

A presumption is something to apply when you otherwise do not know what the situation is. In this case, we absolutely know what the situation is regarding privacy of the name: it does not exist whatsover. The parents and grandparents have made their decision, and this decision has been very widely reported. Had there been no reports, or just one or two minor reports, we'd be obligated to make the presumption in favor of privacy. But as I mentioned, this does not apply in this situation.

The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.

That's right, the name may certainly appear. It boils down, once all the BLP concerns are properly satisfied, to editorial discretion. If you are claiming this sentence from policy is relevant, you are agreeing that there are no BLP issues.

However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

They are properly sourced.

Choor monster ( talk) 12:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again. What caution are you applying? HiLo48 ( talk) 12:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Again??? There is no "again", as there was no discussion over there, just you claiming you're right, without giving anyone a clue how that could possibly be.

As it is, the "caution" in this case is to see if some closely involved family member is trying to maintain privacy regarding the name. Or if most of the mainstream media is deliberately avoiding the name. Or if some court or other government actor has issued a gag order. And to make sure WP:RS have indeed named the name. Choor monster ( talk) 12:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The media you refer to is in one country and the content is pure recentism. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia IS global and long term. The child's opinion cannot be obtained. I see no evidence that you are applying any caution. Caution would guide us to leave out the kid's name. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Now it seems you're just flinging completely unrelated blue links at the proverbial wall, hoping one sticks. This isn't "recentism", it's not overly newsy, and it doesn't matter that the baby's "opinion can not be obtained." Please drop the stick. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's recentism, of the most obvious kind. HiLo48 ( talk) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If we devoted a section to the birth, sure. But that kid will be Chelsea's kid her whole life, and even after, she'll have a particular name on her tombstone. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What we see here is HiLo48 has completely conceded he has absolutely no objection based on WP:BLPNAME. He made one lame objection (what "caution"?) and was told what "caution": the cautions explicitly asked for in the policy, and all obviously not relevant. Rather than face up to this, he runs off and comes up with another imaginary objection, based on zero comprehension of policy. First off, there's WP:RECENTISMISNOTPOLICYOREVENAGUIDELINE. That's right, it's just an essay, offering some intelligent warnings. Even worse, WP:RECENTISM clearly supports the inclusion of the name. It begins by defining recentism:

Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention [...]

Got it? Somehow mentioning the birth of a daughter, without the name, this shows respect for the "long-term, historical view", but including the name doesn't? I, for one, don't see how. Anyway, even if this is recentism, the essay continues with the possible dangers:

[...] possibly resulting in:

Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus.

So let's see. Are there any articles now overburdened with documenting a controversy as it happens, thanks to the name? No. Have any articles been created on flimsy, transient merits, thanks to the name? No. Have the timeless facets of Chelsea Clinton now become muddled or diffused? No. So the good news (except for editors who can't bother to read, let alone comprehend, policy, guidelines, essays) is that "recentism" is not a problem here. In fact, the essay goes on to say:

Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer.

That's right. We are encouraged by this essay to include breaking news, so long as it is properly "vetted and counter-vetted". The essay goes on to explain examples of where recentism was a problem, and how it was solved. For example, the effects of Hurricane Katrina were overwhelming New Orleans related articles. The solution (not deletion, by the way) but the creation of a separate article.

So, what's your next non-BLP complaint? WP:BIAS? By mentioning the name we are not giving a proper world perspective on the issue of the baby? Really, you're that ridiculous. Choor monster ( talk) 12:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not conceded that I have absolutely no objection based on WP:BLPNAME. HiLo48 ( talk) 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course you have. That's what running away from a clear refutation of your utterly lame response to a direct explanation of BLPNAME means in this case, off to some other complaint, apparently picked at random, certainly picked without bothering to even read what the relevant "essay" (not policy, not guideline) even said in the first-place means. Choor monster ( talk) 18:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a Canadian one, with the name in the subheadline. Here's a British one, with the name in the headline. Here's an Australian one, with the name in the lead sentence and photo caption. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's a South African one about her campaign to stop diarrhea in Nigeria. No mention of what's-her-name on that site. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's India Alanscottwalker ( talk) 23:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That Australian one is classic Murdoch tabloid style. (He virtually controls the tabloid press in Australia. It's no doubt why I didn't see this news. I avoid his publications.) The CBC and BBC ones less so, but I will observe again that even those outlets are today far less formal than they used to be. I still wonder how we should deal with the particular obsession in one country for its elected public figures' families. There is no way the grandchild of an ex-Australian Prime Minister would crack a mention like this. ( John Howard's kids don't even have articles of their own.) Doubt if it would happen in the UK for its PM. I suspect we're seeing more coverage from the BBC of this American "royal baby" than they would ever give to the grandchild of an ex-PM of their own. HiLo48 ( talk) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, maybe the newspapers have gone to shit/leaned toward America. How should we deal with it? Dismantle the Murdoch and AP empires and build our own. Until then, we'll just have to reflect the way the English world media currently works. Trying to keep one baby nameless in one sentence in one article won't do anything to turn the tide. I don't say this often, but resistance is futile. The Australian one is from AP, by the way. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And Sydney MH and The Age and ... Alanscottwalker ( talk) 23:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We still need the newspapers, I agree, but we, the editors, have editorial control here. We don't have the same demands as the daily papers. We choose whether something is due. I'm still thinking out loud (well, in text really) about this cultural difference between the USA and the rest of the world. It does seem that the whole world is more excited right now about an ex-US President's grandkid than they ever would be about a similar birth in their own countries. Bet you no-one will ever post anything about John Howard's grandchildren. He was Australia's PM for eleven years, so pretty significant historically. And yes, he has grandchildren. But not even his kids have articles. We're obviously talking about a different standard for writing about the descendants of elected officials in one country when compared with others. Maybe it's valid. It doesn't feel right to me. And all the irrational shouting up above about how obvious it is actually pushed me away from that view. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The community has already decided how to deal with this issue. I've posted many examples of the precedents that prove that long-established community consensus is that if there is reliable sourcing for the names of a BLP's children, those names are included. And it's quite rich that you accuse others of "irrational shouting." Quite rich, indeed. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say many people (let alone the world) are "excited" about this kid. Maybe a bit, four days ago. Pretty much the only reason we're talking about her on Wikipedia now is you. Compared to Prince George and his unborn sibling, this one's a fart in a windstorm. If you feel like adding Howard's (grand)children's names with an RS, that'd probably be fine. But if nobody wants to, nobody wants to. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay enough - Proposed wording of RFC

It's clear that this argument will continue incessantly on various articles. I think we need a well-publicized RFC to see where the wider community stands. Here is my proposed wording:

Should Wikipedia mention the names of non-notable minor children in the biographies of their parent(s) or guardians?
If yes, what are the sourcing requirements for such a mention?

Thoughts? -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this RFC is not particularly useful, since the answer to #1 is "sometimes", and the answer to #2 is "reliable ones." There is long precedent for the names of the children of particularly famous individuals to be included in their articles, as long as those names are reliably-sourced. (I have listed many examples at various points in this discussion.) There is no precedent to simply remove such names. Should we be including such names when the only sourcing is poor, and the subject of the BLP is not particularly famous (say, an academic at a university)? No. But there is simply no support, either in policy or by precedent, to remove all such names. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- We have editors who think "sometimes" doesn't cut it, that non-notable minor children should not be mentioned at all. Perhaps a new question between 1 and 2? If yes, what are the requirements to rate a mention? -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  The consensus above was that "sometimes" and "reliably sourced", combined with the vast precedent, was more than enough. If you insist on opening a formal RFC on this, I will of course express what policy and precedent tell us to do, but I just think it's a waste of time, given that consensus above and vast precedent settles the discussion. A couple of editors refusing to acknowledge the consensus and precedent doesn't merit an RFC, in my opinion. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  - It's not just a "couple of editors". Looking at the diffs and history, it's clear that other editors share the same view. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    I count two who were employing an WP:IDHT strategy. I count maybe one or two others who expressed very qualified reservations. Other than that, most editors were agreeing that given the vast precedent and the reliable sourcing, that certain names of children of BLPs were acceptable. Consensus does not mean unanimity, Neil. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    [38], [39], [40] -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We're not talking about "garden variety celebs", we're talking about famous people, who have not expressed any desire to keep their children's names private, and who (in many cases) actually make public announcements regarding the names of their children, and whose children's names have appeared in reliable sources. Wikipedia will look quite foolish if we refuse to print the names of such, given wide coverage in reliable sources, and no policy precluding it. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Short, sweet, to the point. This does need to attract a wider audience for comments. The only change I would make is to include grandparents (as in the case of Chelsea Clinton's baby, some were adding her name to the articles on both Bill and Hillary, from what I understand). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Could we also ask "If yes, should their names be included in the infobox?" which has been a source of contention. I would hate to have a major RFC that does not cover all the bases in hindsight. Helen Online 15:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- @ HelenOnline: Infoboxes. Crap... :-) They're kind of weird because the core argument is that only notable people should appear in them. I've seen boxes with only one parent, boxes listing only notable minor children and cutting out the rest, etc. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a consesnsus above, and why no wait until it is closed? Regardless, the wording of this RfC is wrong, "notable" is vague, obviously the names of the children are notable, otherwise we would not know them -- whereas, WP:NOTABLE is not an issue for content of already existing articles. WP:NOTABLE is not in-issue within the details of articles, whereas NPOV's WP:UNDUE, is what you are talking about. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. There is consensus above, and the issue of whether the names of non-notable (in the sense that they don't merit their own article) can appear in the articles of famous people is not an issue. Such names appear all the time in our articles, both in BLPs, as well as in articles that discuss events in which such people participated. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, even if you were to get an instruction-creepy "rule" (which we are usually loathe to do), we would still have individual article exceptions. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think, from my understanding, the few editors above who were against including CC's child's name were against it in all cases, no exceptions, which seems absurd, but it's how I read their "arguments." LHM^{ask me a question} 16:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is not only about Clinton. Drmies, for example, has this to say on Roger Federer. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, I've been removing such names for years now, but like everything else on Wikipedia recently this had to become a "problem". The problem--if anyone cares what I think the problem is--is that for celebrities such names are always going to be given out to the media, whether the parent wants it or not, since that's part and parcel of being a celebrity. So there can be no "I don't want my child's name to become known", since the tabloids are always going to find out anyway--much better to just offer up that name and be done with it. So "reliably sourced" is utterly irrelevant: in all cases of celebrities such names are going to be reliably sourced. Cite me one single celebrity who kept a name secret--but you bet there's plenty who wished it didn't work this way, but the best thing they can do is to grant a special interview or photo session, and get it over with.

Second problem, for many, is "editorial discretion", explicitly mentioned in BLPNAME as a criterion for judging whether we should include a name (if reliably sourced). Whether it's obscene remarks ( Jameis Winston or children's names (Federer, Clinton, whoever) or what someone said on a blog post ( Irene Caesar), it seems that editorial discretion is rarely practiced here: there's always someone who says "it's sourced" and "you're censoring". (No, in none of those cases is censorship practiced.) I made reference to Borges's " On Exactitude in Science" and that applies here: the desire to include every single detail (verified or not) does away with any notion of editorial discretion, and this drive for exactitude leads to horrible writing, undue weight, and--yes--BLP violations. Drmies ( talk) 19:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe entirely in using "editorial discretion" in such matters. I also think it's a bit strange to refer to the well-sourced names of a BLP's children as "every single detail (verified or not)." We're not talking about discussion regarding the minute details of what a person wore to a particular party (or something similar). We're talking about a very large part of who they are as a person. And it is an egregious misreading of BLPNAMES to conclude it in any way proscribes the inclusion of the names of non-notable children from the articles of BLPs. It gives editors the discretion to do so, should their be extenuating circumstances, such a poor sourcing, for example. But you seem to believe "editorial discretion" means "not including names of children of BLPs no matter what." That is not "discretion", it is proscription, and it is not supported by policy. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I would only leave out if intentionally concealed from public (which certainly hasn't happened with people like the Clintons) and/or no reliable sources exist that give detail. Like LHM, I would say that the requirement for inclusion is reliable sources. When reliably sourced, it simply leaves any article incomplete to not include detail- they ARE after all a prominent aspect of their lives. Warranting separate articles, of course, is an entirely different story. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 18:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This is what none of the few editors arguing for blanket exclusion wants to admit: the notability of the children is not the issue--no one (that I've seen, anyway) is arguing that these non-notable children should have separate articles. The notability (or non-notability, as is usually the case) of the BLP's children is not, in any way, the issue at hand. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I should also add that becoming famous automatically means one will live under much more scrutiny than those who are not. Only become famous if you are prepared to have your life publicized. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Certainly children's names can be censored out at wikipedia if enough editors agree. There are other examples of wiki-censoring of that type, so it wouldn't be unheard of here. We had someone try to add... I think it was Serena Williams shoe size... and it was deemed too trivial even though it was sourcable. I don't think kids names fall under the same trivia (maybe their birthdays do – a year date seems good enough to me). Things like Encyclopaedia Britannica don't seem to have a problem with kids names/birthdates of celebrities. Wikipedia almost always has more info than a standard encyclopedia – it would seem a bit strange that we would give less info. If it's easily sourced (not tabloids) it seems to be no problem. Leave it to the individual editors involved as a content dispute rather than some safety/policy issue. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 20:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Collins

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Rough consensus achieved on the proposed text by Keithbob: In October 2014 the New York Police Department began investigating Collins after an audio tape, that purported to contain Collins admission of child molestation, was leaked to the media. At that time the Los Angeles Police Department reported it had investigated Collins in 2012 after receiving a claim of a molestation 40 years earlier, however they were not "able to substantiate the allegation." - - Cwobeel (talk)

Various websites (such as TMZ) are making allegations regarding Stephen Collins, getting repeatedly added such as here: [41] - eyes probably needed before it becomes a witch hunt full of salacious rumors... Echoedmyron ( talk) 21:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed that page should be watched closely. If including such a claim, TMZ should certainly NOT be used as a reference. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 21:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not so surprisingly there is currently edit-warring and disagreement at the talk page of this article. It is currently semi-protected, but an administrator might consider a short full protection and encourage people to try and find a consensus at the talk page. Iselilja ( talk) 21:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Eyes are already on it (see article talk page discussion). At this time, there is an audio tape with a man's voice saying he molested a few girls forty years ago. The tape was provided by Collins' ex-wife as part of her divorce case. The voice has not been verified to be Collins nor has Collins made a confession or statement. There are a lot of allegedlys being used in this case. And, of course, the gossip sites are all over it with news agencies picking up the gossip site content. At this time, the article is partially protected. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephen_Collins is currently the recipient of a bunch of media attention due to the fact that he's been accused of molesting children and that apparently, there's a tape of him admitting to it obtained by TMZ. I'm not going to cite any sources because I'd be citing a ton of them, just search 'Stephen Collins' in Google News and you can see all that I'm talking about. What this mainly falls upon on BLP is that WP:BLPCRIME specifically states that For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Ultimately, due to all the media sources reporting on it, it was eventually added to the article to mention the allegation of molesting children. I removed the section about it, and there was some back and forth on the talk page. For a permalink linking to the personal life section (and the bit that I removed), see here. My main concerns of the material is that being accused of molesting children without a conviction or criminal charge is infinitely BLP material that should be removed. The editor who opposed me stated that he was a public figure and that the wide media exposure at least warranted response on the article. What should happen with this article? Thank you. Tutelary ( talk) 00:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please see the current discussion (the latter part of it, at least) at Talk:Stephen Collins#Molestation allegations. There is not edit warring going on now (hasn't been for more than 24 hours, once a minimal description and carefully crafted statement of the facts then known was posted), but there is a discussion now (since the reversion of that statement) prompted by Tutelary about whether those facts should appear in the article at all. I have made my case fully (and it is set forth accurately) in that discussion, so won't repeat it here. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I will only add that I'm not sure why Tutelary keeps latching on that bit about "relatively unknown" people. If Collins was relatively unknown, this story wouldn't have been around the world twice already. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments on previous comments: At the article talk page, there have been numerous comments made by the crowd who believes BLP policies should be pushed aside in order to get something in the article about the alleged molestations by Collins. At first I was okay with putting something in about this issue, now that editors are trying to "grow" the content into a section, I have to say, "whoa, wait a minute". Here is my take on what's been bandied about at the article talk page:

Dwpaul wrote: "we have every business in reporting reliably sourced information of potentially lasting significance" Uh, no. Just because something is reliably sourced it belongs in Wikipedia? No, no, and no. If that were the case, we'd be recklessly putting up all kinds of crap and calling it encyclopedic. That's even less true for a BLP. Like Tutelary has already said, read up on WP:BLP for a clear picture regarding the care we are to take in BLPs more than any other type of article in Wikipedia. Why? As you said yesterday, Dwpaul, there are liability issues to be considered. And let's not forget this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of gossip, rumor, trivia, and the latest news.

Secondly, Dwpaul wrote, "of potentially lasting significance". No, again. "Potentially" is second-guessing. Please read WP:CRYSTAL.

Next, "he is being investigated". So what? People are questioned by law enforcement everyday without being charged/booked. Does that make the investigation/questioning encyclopedic? Of course not. If he was charged, we would have something to put into the article. That he's being investigated is not encyclopedic content.

"an audiotape was released" Again, so what? Who's been verified/authenticated to be the person making the alleged confession on the tape? Oh, you mean they haven't said yet? Then it's not encyclopedic and doesn't belong in and Wikipedia BLP.

"broadcasts have been cancelled" Reruns of an old program have been cancelled. Big deal. Not encyclopedic.

"he has resigned a significant position on the national board of a major actor's union" Which happens how often that we don't put anything in Wikipedia about it? We don't put it in because... (yes, you guessed it) ...it's not encyclopedic.

ImprovingWiki wrote: "My view is that this is an important story" WE DON'T REPORT STORIES. This is NOT a newspaper or magazine or online blog, it's an encyclopedia.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

These are no longer "rumors" reported only by TMZ. There are a lot of reliable sources covering this, and no argument can be made that these facts are insignificant to Collins' biography. As such, reverting out a neutrally-worded (and short) summary of what the reliable sources say is a bit mystifying to me. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying that somebody 'allegedly molested children' is a BLP vio, straight and simple. Unless he's been convicted or been lodged some criminal charge, we should -not- be using the phrasing 'allegedly molested children' in any context. Additionally, in order to restore this material, you must seek out consensus per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Tutelary ( talk) 00:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Collins is not a "relatively unknown" person. He is very well-known. What BLPCRIME is referring to is more along the lines of a notable, but relatively unknown academic, or something on those lines. Also, REQUESTRESTORE specifically mentions that one should make sure the section being restored is written neutrally and based on "high quality sources", both of which are the case here. BLP policy was never intended to be a bludgeon to keep relevant, well-sourced material--that also happens to not reflect well on the BLP--out of such articles. It was intended to keep poorly-sourced and/or irrelevant material out of such articles. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP was designed to ensure that BLPs would be fully compliant with npov, accusations and allegations and that another scandal regarding misinformation on BLPs wouldn't happen. (Forget the name) Stephen Collins is -not- a public figure like you call him, that would be a politician or a famous celebrity. That doesn't apply in any case. REQUESTRESTORE specifically entitles you to get consensus for the contested edit before restoring. BLP policy also meant that removing 'alleged child molester' wouldn't count for 3RR. Do you really consider it adequate to tell every single reader of that article that he 'allegedly' did it? No, we're not, because that violates BLP and all common decency. We're in a media buzz right now, and don't need to coincide with them, especially when we're calling some living person some derogatory term or implying heavily that he actually did it. Tutelary ( talk) 01:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The statement you reverted implied no such thing, heavily or otherwise; unless you think, as you seem to, that a statement that someone is being investigated implies that they are guilty. Whether it does or not, it is the fact. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding 'allegedly' to something doesn't make it euphemize all the stigma that it carries. This is the same reason we will not publish mere accusations that something has occured. We need sources there. In this, we need verification that the allegations are true to even include a mention of them, per WP:BLPCRIME. Sexual assault or Child molestation is a very, very serious crime and to accuse him of allegedly doing it is a BLP violation and should not be present in the article. BLPCRIME is unambiguous. ...or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. He's only been accused, and per BLPCRIME, should be omitted in its entirety. Tutelary ( talk) 01:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The material you keep reverting just reports the fact that he's being investigated regarding that matter--which he incontrovertibly is. And are you seriously claiming that Stephen Collins "is -not- a public figure"? Because that seems a bit absurd. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Since he's not been charged with a crime or a criminal charge, we should omit it per BLPCRIME. Adding 'allegedly' to a very serious BLP violation doesn't make it suddenly not a BLP violation. Tutelary ( talk) 01:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I could just as easily (and accurately) say that since he has never been formally accused of a crime, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. There has been no indictment, nor even (to our knowledge) any legal (at least not criminal) accusation of misdoing. However, I would think that was an overly literal reading of that guidance, and I think you are just as much being overliteral to the other extreme. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You would be agreeing with me. BLPcrime specifically excludes including allegations or accusations that a person has committed a crime. Sexual assault or molestation is a crime. There's no charge or conviction. Tutelary ( talk) 01:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Would saying something like "Collins was charged with molesting children" or "Collins was accused of molesting children" be any better? Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless something new has occurred, I'm pretty certain that at this point, he hasn't been charged with anything yet (so why would you want to say he has been charged?) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It was more of a general question as to whether "charged with" or "accused of" would be better than "allegedly". Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I would be against including it at the moment. Has anyone offered a source other than TMZ? Isn't TMZ a tabloid? Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 04:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

TMZ is indeed tabloid-like in nature. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

They regard themselves as one, but only because information includes TMZ as source it cannot be discarded. Also read WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34#TMZ.com. VandVictory ( talk) 05:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the incredibly high profile nature of this situation, I don't think BLP issues are a worry here. If this were an issue of an accusation and him denying it the situation might be different. There are substantial and notable aspects of his career that are affected by this and need to be included in the article, such as his removal from TV shows and movies. BLPCRIME specifically discusses "relatively unknown figures" -- there is no prohibition on included sourced NPOV info on already notable figures. This would mean not saying he is a child molester, as that would be improper, but acknowledging that there is an ongoing investigation. -- Yaksar (let's chat) 07:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

side conversation about the page protection process

Six hours before this article was (in my opinion improperly) protected, Winkelvi made this edit removing any mention of the investigation. In the edit summary he claimed that most of the content was POV, even though none of it was, as it was simply a neutrally-worded reporting of the facts. LHM^{ask me a question} 13:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you here to talk about the article or editor behavior? Got a problem with me? AN/I is the other direction. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would I take this to ANI, when it is a content dispute? That doesn't make sense. This isn't a battleground, WV. My problem is that you claim the material was removed for a reason that is inaccurate. This is especially problematic given that you had just agreed to a substantially similar version only a few hours earlier. The material at issue is neither "POV" (as you now claim) nor undue, which is the only possible issue as I see it. It is a short, simple summation of the facts regarding what happened. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: The reason I refer to the protection as potentially improper is because there wasn't some hot-and-heavy edit war in progress. The last edit to the article prior to the protection was WV's removal of the short, neutrally-worded passage six hours before. To fully-protect the page for 3 days at that point seems more than a bit excessive. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You brought me up by name, which was unnecessary if you are only commenting on the edit. My reasons were not inaccurate, but might seem that way to someone who disagrees with the removal of the content. Would you be okay with the full protection for three days if the article still contained the content you think should be there? Never mind, don't znswer. we're not discussing editors, just edits, right? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I would most certainly not be in favor of full protection, even if you hadn't removed the neutrally-worded, succinct passage regarding the investigation. (Implying that I would have been is an assumption of bad faith on your part, and not appreciated.) There was, quite simply, no pressing need to fully protect that article, period, whether with the material or without. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've collapsed the above section so the discussion about content can continue. I'm inclined to agree with others that WP is not a newspaper and there is no rush to include this info. The story is still developing. All of the articles I have seen say: "according to an audio tape acquired by TMZ". And even the entertainment site's narrative is based on the audio tape which has not been validated. The only other thing I've seen is a story saying that LA police had an earlier allegation and they investigated but found no grounds for action and that they are now reviewing the case to make sure they didn't miss anything. So I think some patience is needed. If Collins is arrested and charges are filed AND if that is widely reported in reputable sources like the LA Times (which it likely would be) then it can be a minor mention in the article per WP:BLPCRIME.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much my entire qualm with it. Nothing has been confirmed, the situation is dynamic and who knows, he could get off scot free tomorrow and the investigation finds no wrong doing, what would go in the article then? That's a discussion for when that happens, but I feel that some would argue that the accusation itself was notable--No. This BLP issue is stemming from the fact that you can't say allegedly or say that someone accused someone of doing something that is a crime--Innocent until proven guilty, as mandated by BLP. We can't include any mention of the overt allegations until there is a criminal charge or a trial going on. Nothing's happened so far. Tutelary ( talk) 18:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your reading of BLP is incorrect, in my opinion. If "you can't say allegedly or say that someone accused someone of doing something that is a crime", then Michael Jackson would never have become a featured article because of this kind of section about the child molestation accusations. (For the record, I know that article is no longer a BLP, but it was at one point, and we didn't pretend like the allegations didn't exist.) LHM^{ask me a question} 18:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OSE is a useful essay because it encompasses differing circumstances and in this, Michael Jackson's difference was that he was actually charged with a crime and acquitted. A court case happened out of it. That has not happened here. Should the allegations have appeared and there not be a court case, and I'd been on that page, I'd have argued the same thing that they be left out in favor of BLP, regardless of how widespread they might be. Tutelary ( talk) 19:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And you'd have been wrong to do so. The purpose of BLP policy is not to "scrub" articles of any negative information about the subject. The purpose is to keep such information out when it can't be reliably sourced and to keep it from becoming the focus of the article. Yours is a common misconception, though, and sometimes even manages to gain a tentative consensus, even though it is what I consider to be a major misreading of BLP policy. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who is misreading policy. We can't state that someone committed a crime without them being convicted of that crime. that's what BLP policy is inherently instructing us. It does note for a 'public figure' exception, which Stephen is not a politican or a highly famous celebrity and does not qualify. Anywho, I'm not gonna argue the hypothetical when I have the realism in my face right now. No allegations of any child molesting or anything of the sort should go into the article until a criminal charge or a conviction has occurred. Tutelary ( talk) 19:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What I would like to know now is this: How long will the article remain fully protected? If not indefinitely, will someone^who? issue a policy-based proclamation that every mention of this must (or even can) be reverted? Because I can almost certainly guarantee you that shortly after the protection is lowered some mention of it (likely many that will be poorly phrased and/or sourced and/or be outright BLP violations by any reading) will be repeatedly inserted in the article, and if we continuously revert those insertions, without a clear and concise policy statement to point to, we will simply (and not unreasonably) be accused of suppressing information merely to protect the subject's reputation. And for those spans of time between insertion and revert, multiple violations of BLP and probably other policies will be present in the article, which is currently seeing page views on the order of 120,000 per day. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Only 10,000 of which are me. ;-) Dwpaul ^Talk 19:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please point to even one editor who is advocating that the article "state that someone committed a crime." Literally not one editor is asking for that. What we are advocating is that Wikipedia not pretend like there's no investigation regarding Collins. It is not against BLP policy for a BLP's article to reflect that the person is being investigated regarding a crime before "a criminal charge or conviction has occurred." LHM^{ask me a question} 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've already made myself quite clear on this. What the allegations are saying is that he has committed a crime against children. Allegations, accusations, that he's committed this crime. This is specifically addressed in WP:BLPCRIME which I'm sure you're familiar with right now. ...editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Suggesting that he 'allegedly' did a crime is saying or accusing that he did do it, a violation of BLPcrime and should not be present in the article in any form until he's been charged or convicted. Why is that such a harsh standard? As I said, this situation is dynamic and could change. Tutelary ( talk) 19:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You consistently and quite conveniently ignore the beginning of that sentence, which is: For relatively unknown people. Collins is not relatively unknown by any standard. And it says must seriously consider. This has been very seriously considered for several days now, here and on the article's Talk page, and unless you can tell me how this is going to work in a practical sense (see above), I think we have given it quite enough consideration. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I echo Dwpaul's concern, noting, with interest, that you left out the portion of the above quote that clearly does not support your interpretation: "For relatively unknown people," it says, and Collins is not "relatively unknown." If you are going to quote policy, please do not snip it in such a way that it misconstrues the meaning of the policy. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I did just mention it under the influence of 'public figures', which I mentioned that he is of not. He's not a politician and he's not a famous celebrity. Tutelary ( talk) 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you define "famous celebrity"? And where did you find that as the definition of "relatively unknown"? Dwpaul ^Talk 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That is certainly a novel definition of "relatively unknown", when it includes a man who spent many many years as the face of a popular TV show. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no response to my question, let me point out why Tutelary's interpretation of "relatively unknown" is completely wrong. WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown refers the reader to WP:Who is a low profile individual for clarification on this question. I would like Tutelary, or anyone else, to point out even one of the criteria (of which only one must be satisfied) for a "high profile" individual which Stephen Collins does not meet, and did not meet prior to the current scandal.
Also, I am still waiting for someone — anyone — from the "exclude all mention" camp to explain how that will work in terms of implementing, explaining and defending the continuous reversion activity that will be needed to maintain the state in which they think the article should remain. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to clarify my earlier statement. I still support that WP is not a newspaper and we should take our time and let the story develop. However, WP:BLPCRIME pertains to people who are relatively unknown and whose privacy needs to be protected. However for a public figure like Collins, WP:PUBLICFIGURE is the applicable guideline and when the allegations become wide spread and reported in multiple, reliable third party sources then we should consider some modest insertion of content. Keeping in mind that this is one event in the context of 65 years of life and a 40 year career. At the same time we have to be careful of WP:UNDUE weight and WP:RECENTISM.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text

Because Collins is a very notable public figure and the coverage of the allegations have now spread to multiple mainstream sources I think some addition to the article may be appropriate per WP:PUBLICFIGURE which says: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out

USA Today - Oct 9, [42] Stephen Collins, you might have heard, is under investigation for child molestation charges.
Fox News - Oct 9 [43] Stephen Collins –aka Reverend Eric Camden—is being investigated for child molestation,
People magazine - Oct 8 [44] On Tuesday, audio files, purporting to be Collins confessing to having had inappropriate sexual conduct with underage girls, were leaked to the media.
Time magazine - Oct 8 [45] The former 7th Heaven star confessed to molesting young girls to his estranged wife in a recording released by TMZ Tuesday. Collins is currently being investigated by the New York Police Department.
LA Times - Oct 8 [46] Los Angeles police began investigating "7th Heaven" actor Stephen Collins in 2012 after receiving a report from a woman who claimed she had been molested by Collins 40 years earlier, a police captain said Wednesday............The New York Police Department revealed Tuesday that special victims detectives were investigating Collins, 67, after celebrity news site TMZ posted an audiotape in which a man purported to be the actor confessed to sexually abusing three girls. TMZ said the tape was recorded by Collins' estranged wife during a therapy session with the actor. The man on the tape mentioned two victims in New York and one in Los Angeles, TMZ said.

Based on the content from the above reliable sources I would propose a one or two sentence summary such as this:

In October 2014 the New York Police Department began investigating Collins after an audio tape, that purported to contain Collins admission of child molestation, was leaked to the media. At that time the Los Angeles Police Department reported it had investigated Collins in 2012 after receiving a claim of a molestation 40 years earlier, however they were not "able to substantiate the allegation."
-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The LAPD has said they were not able to substantiate that a crime had occurred in LA in response to the report which they investigated. The NYPD has made no such statement. Your text invites conflation of the two investigations. And I think that at this time your introduction of yet another variation into this discussion is unhelpful. The current discussion must reach consensus about whether the scandal should be mentioned at all before we start trying to rewrite the text that introduces it. And it will take only one or two editors to completely corrupt your effort to arrive at a NPOV expression of the facts. How will we address that? Dwpaul ^Talk 21:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, a technicality: We do not know whether the NYPD investigation began before or after the tape was "leaked" (and was it, and by whom?). We have heard that a complaint was filed in New York, but we do not know when it was filed. NYPD confirmed only that it was investigating a complaint. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there are multiple sources saying he is under investigation and that needs to be considered. As for the unresolved investigation by the LAPD, maybe that sentence could be left out for now. I also share your fear that the insertion of minimal text will open the flood gate for the expansion of the coverage in the article and create undue weight but I don't think we can totally ignore the widespread news coverage per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I look forward to comments and insights from others.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I do see now where you contributed your thoughts in this section to the question of whether the information should be introduced at all. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I support the tone and length of the proposed text, as it takes a NPOV, is not overlong, and is well and reliably sourced. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Though I think it is only marginally better, if at all, than the text that was removed (and not because I wrote it), I support this (with the concern I expressed). Certainly better than pretending that nothing has happened. Think there should also be some mention of why TV viewers won't be seeing him for a while, and his resignation from the national leadership of the major US actor's union, both of which were in the removed text. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't think anything needs to be said in the article about the investigation until he's charged with something. If he ever is. Put in the article that he resigned from SAG, but in no way should there be anything that ties the two things together. Until Collins releases a statement in regard to his reasons for resigning, if he ever does, nothing should suggest to a reader that the two things (investigation and resignation) are connected. Until he's charged with something, it's a non-issue in regard to encyclopedic content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
i would support this text, as it accurately summarizes the available significant reliable information without violating any of our policies and while maintaining the correct amount of neutrality.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I still have an issue with the text because if the allegation wasn't supported by the police, then why even include it? And then there's also the question of the first sentence. I'm feeling that it is still a BLP violation because the admission of guilt is not collaborated by a public statement by the person and has not been confirmed to be an exact admission of wrongdoing (or independently verified by audio experts of similar people). Though honestly, all this conflict is making me want to fold...as a counter proposal, could we just include the fact that he's under investigation with the police, with no mention of anything relating to children? Of course I can already see the responses, since it's omitting what's the major bit of the happening that the media has had a field day with and the main issue of contention can be controversial in itself. Tutelary ( talk) 21:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I support the proposed text. ImprovingWiki ( talk) 22:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Requesting swift admin closure and a statement of consensus on this dispute ASAP as the subject article is now fully unprotected. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI, there is some commentary on this incident at Faye Grant. Kelly ^hi! 17:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
A little late to the conversation but I support the proposed text. LM2000 ( talk) 22:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

WANTED: Experienced, uninvolved editor or admin to close and summarize this thread. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And so it begins. [47] [48] Dwpaul ^Talk 23:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text to reflect that on Faye Grant article page: "In October 2014, it was revealed that a tape recording secretly made years ago by Grant and allegedly containing the voice of Collins was under investigation. In it, the male speaker on the recording allegedly confesses to sexual abuse against minors." Reference is as follows: [49]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article about Kailash Satyarthi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

Seems to have been taken care of before any action from here was needed. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

ABOUT KAILASH SATYARTHI: "He became Prime Minister of India after conclusion of latest Lok Sabha elections in May 2014." WELL HE NEVER BECAME THE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA. PLEASE RECTIFY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.104.28 ( talk) 11:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I can not find this sentence in the article, so I presume it has been removed already.-- Auric talk 17:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christopher Lee (politician)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

Article PRODed by Meatsgains. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Short article about a local politician. Quite possibly not notable, but not really A7-bait IMHO. But the problem is that the facts in the article are highly negative. They look to be sourced, but I get the feeling the article was written just to put the negative stuff here on WP. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that. Seems to not notable and it was all negative. Honestly I would consider opening an AfD or putting it up for speedy delete. He's a politician for a township of 4,873. He's a CEO of (i suppose) the company that ones that historical place. Neither of which seem to meet notability guidelines. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 23:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I PROD'd the page as subject is non-notable. Meatsgains ( talk) 04:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Charles Lavine

Ugh, what a horrible article. I've removed some of the worst of the garbage from it, but someone seems to have registered an account for the sole purpose of reverting me, funny that! Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 13:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC).

Kwame Kilpatrick

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

Collect removed material and photo that was in violation of WP:BLP. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Is a booking photo necessary or even allowed when we have (and have used for years) an ordinary photo (File:Kwame Kilpatrick.jpg)? I feel that this is a BLP violation of unnecessary disparagement. Rmhermen ( talk) 14:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually - just something which would need a positive consensus as being the most representative image of the person. I also removed the gratuitous use of a prison address as his "residence" as being also something which is generally not done in a BLP. Collect ( talk) 15:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The booking photo and prison address smack of either a poor attempt at humor and/or POV-pushing, neither of which is appropriate in any Wikipedia article, let alone an article subject to WP:BLP. Bottom line: delete the prison address, replace the booking photo, and let the facts of his convictions speak for themselves. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 15:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Well said, Dirtlawyer. I have nothing original to add except to agree with the proposed approach. TheBlueCanoe 15:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hugo Race

I am trying to correct the incorrect information and spelling in the Wikipedia post on myself - my edits are being blocked, Please advise, thank you. preceding unsigned comment made by HJ Race ( talk)

Hello Hugo, it is not recommended for a person to edit his own BLP.
Can you point out the errors in the article so other editors can try to fix it? I noticed you tried to change the date of birth (1963 instead of 1961) and the name of a band Boom Boom Fix instead of Boom Boom Fit. Can you find any sources that can be referenced? I was not able to. Since in my opinion, your date of birth is probably not a controversial issue, in case you also can't find a reference, and there is no valid reference that cites the incorrect date of birth, you might self-publish the correct one on the bio section of your webpage, and then request for it to be corrected by other editors here or in my talk page-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 08:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COISELF Here is the policy that concerns you editing your own article. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 10:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find any sources regarding his birthdate. Out of the two used in the article to support "early 1960s" one is a broken link and the second is just him saying he listened to music as a child in the 1960s and doesn't specify how old he was at the time. I suggest we remove references to his birthdate until a source is found. WP:BLP asks us to remove any unsourced information, even if it is mundane. I don't see "Boom Boom Fit" anywhere in the article, but I did see they tried to change "Dum Dum Fit" to "Dum Dum Fix". I'm not sure if they were trying to make fun of us (ie "fix it dum dum") as a quick Google search has plenty of hits for Dum Dum Fit and none for Fix. I see user:OrangeMike reverted this editors edits that were being made from a different username as spam, which suggests to me there was a more problematic series of edits in the past. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not actually clear if this individual is the same as the person that got banned. The person that got banned only made one edit. If we can't validate the birthday your proposal that we remove the birthday would fix that issue. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 19:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Jaycee Dugard, Survior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

Cwobeel has removed the sentence with the problematic phrasing. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In the entry describing Jaycee Dugard's kidnapping, Wikipedia allows the use of the phrase, "Garrido also told her that by engaging in sex acts with him, which he would videotape, she was protecting other girls whom he would not need to victimize." The legal and practical application of this terminology, especially without the proper grammar to specify a direct quote or source, gives 'weight' to the offender's assertion that his pedophilic urges somehow qualified as a "need". This is INACCURATE and also misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.103.222 ( talk • contribs) 15:45, October 12, 2014‎

I have removed that sentence as it was unreferenced. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interaccess Electronic Media Arts Centre and User talk:24.52.243.144

There are two instances of BLP violations, now reverted, that should probably have the history hidden. Even though this is an IP talk page, two mentions of a person regarding legal issues should be removed out of the history, here and here. This is concerning someone who does not have an article on Wikipedia, is not a public figure and, as I lived in the city at the time of the events in question, I kno it was as never in the media, so there would be no sources available. Mind you, this is a talk page, but I believe BLP and RS would still apply. Thanks. freshacconci talk to me 01:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary for the article in question, here now contains the name of the person I have been discussing and should be hidden as well as this IP is clearly on some sort of personal campaign.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshacconci ( talk • contribs)

Jack Evans

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)

This Washington DC councilman ran for his party's nomination for Mayor last year. In the run-up to the primaries his Wikipedia biography became an egregious hatchet job of undue negative innuendo and trivia.

After I left a note here a month or two back, a couple of editors with no history there and some understanding of WP:BLP arrived and we pared it back to a simple, neutral encyclopedia biography. It's starting to slip back now (is the council election on now?) and I don't have the time to watch it.

The subject of the abuse is understandably outraged. As am I. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I just critically reviewed the article, and found only very minor, but well sourced criticism of the subject for his use of constituent service funds. I made several stylistic edits, but it appears that Anthony and others have already removed any NPOV or BLP problematic content. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 04:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Kálmán Mizsei

Hi there! I created the article about Kálmán Mizsei while I was taking classes with him. Today I came across these two articles that lambaste him. Is Inner City Press a reliable source? Should their criticism of Mizsei be mentioned in the Wikipedia entry? The answer is probably no but I just wanted to make sure. Nataev ^talk 07:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ian Brown

A user repeatedly, over several months it would seem, changes a referenced location of Timperley, Altrincham to Manchester on the Ian Brown article (the editor incorrectly argues that Timperley is in Manchester - when even the articles themselves on Timperley and Altrincham make it clear these are not areas of Manchester.... the editor doesn't appear to understand the different between Manchester the city, and Greater Manchester the county). I have explained to the editor recently that Timperley is an area of Altrincham and that Altrincham is a town south of Manchester in the county of Greater Manchester. These are all facts, but this refuses to accept this - if you look at the edit summaries of some edits you will see some of their abusive comments using several usernames including WIKifact agent, Anastasiabbb, Bollockbrother and IP 90.213.94.117. The abuse is ongoing and would appreciate an experienced editor to look at the article and hopefully protect the page (I am aware this would stop myself from editing, but I am more interested in the page being accurate!).

92.8.19.201 ( talk) 13:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I think the matter is of a simple mistake. Greater Manchester seems to be at the heart of the dispute. Perhaps you can make a change that keeps mention of Altrincham but also mentions that it's in Greater Manchester. That would certainly broaden the information and be of more value to the reader. I think that should resolve the issue for them and I can't see that you would have an issue with that change. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 18:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If necessary you could report them for edit warring. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 18:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky

This article is clearly written by the subject in question. Please remove it and replace it with the previous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.205.62 ( talk) 15:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed heavily to remove unsourced content. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

hector jimenez bravo

Mucho de lo escrito en este articulo es mentira y no probable usa esta página para robustecer su imagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chef martin joel vasquez ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hector_Jimenez-Bravo, This individual? What information do you think is a lie? Is it information cited to a source you find unreliable or is it unsourced information? And I don't see any immediate evidence that this individual has been involved with the creation of their page. I do see that another editor with conflict of interest may have edited the article but it wasn't to help this individual. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 18:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello @ Chef martin joel vasquez: I have taken the liberty to fix your Spanish spelling, pending your answer to Serialjoepsycho's questions I do see an issue with the fact that 8 of the 18 references in the article point to the webpage of Hector www.chefbravo.com -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 20:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS)

Admin misconduct

The material is undue in a BLP regardless of sourcing

Of fluff and Barrowman

Note to closing admin

Suzannah Lipscomb: removing personal information through OTRS without consensus

List of deprogrammers

rev willie f wilson

John Ashton (public health director)

Sarah Brinklow

Athletics at the !954 Commonwealth Games

How is a "contentions material of a person's life" consider as a biography?

Lonely Christopher

andre lamothe

Yoel Romero's religion.

Katie Jones (web entrepreneur)

Scott Greenstein and some people I haven't heard of

Giorgio Antonucci | removing of the Start-Class assessment

Children names in BLPs

Chelsea Clinton

Jenna Bush Hager

Regarding the inclusion of the names of BLP's children in the article of a BLP

WP:BLPNAME does not apply to Chelsea Clinton's daughter, line by line

Okay enough - Proposed wording of RFC

Stephen Collins

Proposed text

Article about Kailash Satyarthi

Christopher Lee (politician)

Charles Lavine

Kwame Kilpatrick

Hugo Race

Jaycee Dugard, Survior

Interaccess Electronic Media Arts Centre and User talk:24.52.243.144

Jack Evans

Kálmán Mizsei

Ian Brown

Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky

hector jimenez bravo

John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS)

Admin misconduct

The material is undue in a BLP regardless of sourcing

Of fluff and Barrowman

Note to closing admin

Suzannah Lipscomb: removing personal information through OTRS without consensus

List of deprogrammers

rev willie f wilson

John Ashton (public health director)

Sarah Brinklow

Athletics at the !954 Commonwealth Games

How is a "contentions material of a person's life" consider as a biography?

Lonely Christopher

andre lamothe

Yoel Romero's religion.

Katie Jones (web entrepreneur)

Scott Greenstein and some people I haven't heard of

Giorgio Antonucci | removing of the Start-Class assessment

Children names in BLPs

Chelsea Clinton

Jenna Bush Hager

Regarding the inclusion of the names of BLP's children in the article of a BLP

WP:BLPNAME does not apply to Chelsea Clinton's daughter, line by line

Okay enough - Proposed wording of RFC

Stephen Collins

Proposed text

Article about Kailash Satyarthi

Christopher Lee (politician)

Charles Lavine

Kwame Kilpatrick

Hugo Race

Jaycee Dugard, Survior

Interaccess Electronic Media Arts Centre and User talk:24.52.243.144

Jack Evans

Kálmán Mizsei

Ian Brown

Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky

hector jimenez bravo

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook