Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once

On October 13 a bot put 109 BLP articles into category "Climate Change Deniers" due to a CFD discussion. Number of editors participating: 10. Number of notices on the BLP talk pages: zero. Number of reliable sources cited to support the changes: zero. I claim that WP:BLPN is the appropriate discussion venue for such a large set of BLP changes, and that labelling people "deniers" is not appropriate without a strong consensus of subject-specific sources plus a strong consensus of editors who have actually seen the BLPs and are aware of previous discussions on the BLPs' talk pages and are aware of WP:AE. The articles are: Khabibullo Abdussamatov Stuart Agnew Syun-Ichi Akasofu Claude Allègre J. Scott Armstrong Michele Bachmann Sallie Baliunas Timothy Ball Robert Balling Joseph Bast Joe Bastardi Godfrey Bloom Joe Barton David Bellamy Maxime Bernier Marsha Blackburn Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen Christopher Booker Barry Brill Paul Broun Douglas Carswell Robert M. Carter John Christy Petr Chylek Ian Clark (geologist) John Coleman (news weathercaster) Piers Corbyn Ann Coulter Vincent Courtillot Ken Cuccinelli Judith Curry Edward E. David Jr. James Delingpole Martin Durkin (television director) Myron Ebell Nigel Farage Chris de Freitas David Deming David Douglass Don Easterbrook David Evans (mathematician and engineer) Ivar Giaever Steven Goddard Vincent R. Gray William M. Gray William Happer John Hawkins (columnist) Rodney Hide Ole Humlum David Icke Craig D. Idso Keith E. Idso Sherwood B. Idso Jim Inhofe Wibjörn Karlén Michael Kelly (physicist) Steve King William Kininmonth (meteorologist) Václav Klaus Steven E. Koonin Lyndon LaRouche David Legates Lucia Liljegren Rush Limbaugh Richard Lindzen Scott Lively Craig Loehle Anthony Lupo Bob Lutz (businessman) Steve McIntyre Ross McKitrick Patrick Michaels Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Andrew Montford Patrick Moore (environmentalist) Marc Morano Nils-Axel Mörner Tad Murty Joanne Nova Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) Vladimir Paar Sarah Palin Garth Paltridge Tim Patterson Melanie Phillips Ian Plimer Denis Rancourt Arthur B. Robinson Marco Rubio Burt Rutan Pat Sajak Murry Salby Nicola Scafetta Harrison Schmitt Tom Segalstad Nir Shaviv Fred Singer Willie Soon Roy Spencer (scientist) Bret Stephens Peter Stilbs Philip Stott Henrik Svensmark George H. Taylor Hendrik Tennekes Anastasios Tsonis Fritz Vahrenholt Jan Veizer Anthony Watts (blogger). I will place appropriate notices on the talk pages. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCAT, I think it is a really bad idea to have a category called "Climate change deniers" into which we put living people. Many of the listed people have been described as climate change deniers, often by reliable sources, so there may be some justice to applying the term—but in that case, the justification and sourcing for the term needs to be described with appropriate attribution and nuance in the body of the relevant articles. Categories, by their nature, are devoid of nuance, and so I don't think this is an appropriate use of categorization. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree that a category based on a labeled term ("denier") for BLP is very very iffy. If we even should keep the category, it should be at something like "Climate change theory opponents" but that's even if we should keep the category. A list where we would be able to include inline sourcing where the individuals have self-stated opposition to climate change would be at least reasonable to avoid a question of unsourced contentious claims. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is analogous to religious views. If someone claims to be a climate change denier, he or she will be offended if this isn’t included provided a RS supports it. I edit Godfrey Bloom whose views are unequivocal. JRPG (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the concerns about this. Categories are blunt tools and the term "denier", while found in sources, is clearly pejorative and judgmental, regardless of the science and even if many both here and in the real world might think it fair. N-HH talk/edits 18:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

[EC] Fully agree with N-HH. Many extremely pejorative terms are found in sources that oppose those views. This phrase should only be used for BLPs of people who self-identify as "climate change denier". It is also imprecise, lumping together a blogger who thinks that the climate isn't changing and that all the scientists are liars with a respected climate scientist who agrees with the majority scientific view regarding climate change, including the most controversial part (the claim that all or nearly all climate change is the result of human activity) but doubts that proposed solutions that only involve a few countries and exclude China, India, etc. will solve the problem. Those are two completely different categories of people and should no be lumped together. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As RevelationDirect said, maybe we could use a more neutral name like Category:People rejecting anthropogenic climate change. Prhartcom (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The parent category is named Category:Climate change skepticism and denial which is a little wordy but seems inclusive. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Masem that this probably shouldn't be a category (under any name). --JBL (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell's argument here; while I think they're clearly outside the scientific mainstream, the category name is needlessly pejorative. Prhartcom's suggestion strikes me as sensible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please also have the courtesy to alert each editor involved in the October discussion. — TPX 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I hope it's redundant since notifications have been made on all the talk pages now, but I hereby alert Youknowwhatimsayin 烏Γ Marcocapelle RevelationDirect Prhartcom Jerod Lycett Peterkingiron Nederlandse Leeuw Ssscienccce Cirt and the closing administrator Good Ol’factory. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This notification, at least for me, was in no way redundant; I had no way of knowing this discussion existed. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The articles were already in the category Climate change skeptics, which was renamed to deniers. Frankly, I think that the inclusion of most of those people in the original category was not controversial. What is controversial is the new category name, which sounds pejorative. I don't see this is a BLP issue. I didn't participate (or even know about) the original discussion. But to the extent that the new category name is pejorative, I'd certainly vote to revert to the skeptic category name. M.boli (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Skeptics" is just as bad as "deniers", even when knowing how the term is normally used in that field. Out of context, it implies "their opinion is wrong", and unless they self-identify as that, that's a label that runs afoul of BLP even if if the claim is made by a reliable source. And that's where we need the strength of inline sourcing to justify when such a label can be used. Hence why any type of category to group these people seems wrong and it is much better to use a list here which can be sourced and better maintained to avoid BLP problems. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We represent how the reliable sources represent. And basically all the reliable sources that discuss the people who oppose the science that mankind is changing climate are "deniers" . That positions they hold and espouse may reflect badly upon them is not a BLP issue.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It has already been skeptics and before that it was deniers. We have been going back and forth between those two with many discussions along the way. If we're going to change it, change it to anything but either of those two. See other suggested names above. Prhartcom (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out that there's a difference between skeptic and denier. Skeptic accurately relates that someone doesn't believe it. Denier implies that climate change theories are proven and that they won't accept it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• People who deny climate change probably do not see the term "denier" as pejorative. See, e.g., Category:Holocaust deniers. The category definition may be incomplete if they only deny human-induced climate change. A new CFD can be started if needed to adjust either "denier" or the scope. But there is no BLP crisis requiring immediate response.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of climate category might be okay, but it's very difficult. If someone denies that the US can unilaterally take action to stop climate change, does that make them a "denier"? If they deny that climate change would be a totally bad thing, without any silver lining, does that make them a denier? If they acknowledge climate change but attribute 51% of it to non-human causes, are they a "denier"? Maybe a better category would be "people with a position on climate change".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Milowent -deniers are proud of their claims though wp:FLAT applies to those believing that CO2 doesn't cause it. JRPG (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that the current list includes Richard Lindzen, former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change, and Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Categorising those two as "climate change deniers" is madness. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I favor either of the paths suggested by MastCell and Anythingyouwant: delete the category per WP:BLPCAT, or expand the category to Category:People with public views on climate change or similar. alanyst 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • having a public view on climate change is not notable or distinguishing. Denying the overwhelming scientific consensus about human induced climate change is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    • What consensus exactly? Th UN report on climate change? Some kind of academic work? Something else? And to what extent does one have to 'deny' the 'overwhelming scientific consensus' to be included? What if one thinks the UN report on climate change is too optimistic? Are they a 'denier' too? Bonewah (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Mr. Doom, sure it's distinguishing. It distinguishes people who have a public position from those who don't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    • TRPoD, notability of a person's public views on climate change is up to the sources, and should not depend on our notion of how valid those views are. Whether a person has expressed public views on the subject is a rather objective question, much more suited to the binary nature of WP categorization than the nuances of the nature of those views. alanyst 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, categorizing people, living or dead, is the first step in creating a stereotype, which has been used for centuries as a divisive technique, from the Christians who were accused of burning Rome to the modern war on drugs, in essence to find support for a cause by finding someone to rally the masses against. Categories of things like athletic achievements, professions, or Nobel Prize winners are fine, but I personally am opposed to any categorization of things like race, religion or personal beliefs, because Wikipedia should not be participating in the stereotyping of individuals. Zaereth (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Although I disagree strongly with this category name, if someone is known largely as a critic/skeptic/doubter/denier/revisionist/debunker of climate change, I see nothing wrong with categorizing them as such. It makes it easier for readers to find other, similar articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure McCarthy didn't see anything wrong with his actions either, and that was the real problem with McCarthyism. This is no different. The real problem is not seeing how our actions affect others until it is too late. If Wikipedia existed in the 1950s, would you be in favor of a category of "Communist sympathizers?" The world is simply not as "black and white" as categorizations, which is exactly what makes them useful tools. It's much easier to rally people against a "perceived evil" than it is a spectrum of individuals. The Romans did it, as did the Nazis, the Americans, the English, and everyone else since the beginning of recorded history. George Bush Jr. had it handed in his lap, but like an idiot chose to take the fight to an enemy that the people were not even considering. As an encyclopedia, we're expected to do better than the politically-controlled news outlets we use as sources. Zaereth (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Godwin's law @Zaereth: If Wikipedia existed in the 1950s, the term would probably be "Fellow Travelers" rather than "Communist Sympathizers" but, under either name, it should be deleted per WP:OCASSOC. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I share the concern expressed above that the current name for the category is potentially misleading. Many public officials who are currently included in the category have indicated that they believe in climate change, but doubt the significance of human activity as a factor. I think it's misleading to say that they are "climate change deniers".CFredkin (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• And what are they "denying"? That change is occurring or that it's a man made problem and not a natural cycle? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've never been a fan of the word "denier" as a label; I prefer describing instead of labeling: "...advocates for climate change denial", "...who denies climate change", "...rejects the scientific consensus on...", etc. However, that's just a personal preference. Our sources are extremely clear on these articles that the subject denies climate change. Our sources are also very clear that the term "skeptic" is incorrect, and intentionally misleading. I'm frustrated that Pete is forum shopping; this discussion has been had many times, twice now at CfD, so Pete is trying somewhere new to get a different result. Nearly everything he's said in his first post here is untrue to some degree. If anyone wants the cat renamed, we can have that conversation (that's why WP:CfD exists), but please look into the sourcing and the BLPs first. Try Anthony Watts (blogger) for an example, and investigate the talk page and sources. As our sources there indicate clearly, "skeptic" is absolutely not the right word.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• CFD Notification Procedure "Number of notices on the BLP talk pages: zero." The current procedure for notifying other editors of category nominations is to tag the nomination category page which does two things: 1) it brings the page to the notice of anyone who is "watching" that page and 2) it places an alert on any WikiProject that is on the talk page. There are limitations to both: many long-term editors are watching so many pages they may miss the tag (that's why I always tag the category creator with a notice as an extra courtesy) and categories are much more likely to not have WikiProjects on the talk page.

When this category was nominated, the Skepticism and Environmental WikiProjects had tagged the corresponding talk page so they were automatically notified here and here. If the WikiProject Biography had tagged the category talk page, the alert would have shown up here.

As much as I disagree with the outcome of this particular nomination, as someone who routinely nominates other catgories, I don't think it's fair to claim the nomination was out of order when the process was followed. Rather I think it's worth emphasizing the importance of tagging category talk pages and watching the alerts pages. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Jess that this is forum shopping. There was consensus for the new name; two days later, another CfD was opened and is largely being opposed. My participation in this collective discussion has been unintentionally contentious, and while I would prefer a more neutral name if possible, we can't ignore the sources. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if it's intentional forum shopping (the concerns here were BLP focused) but it is the wrong forum. (And, as an opponent of "denier" my viewpoint would benefit from moving it to this forum.)RevelationDirect (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Skip the whole category. "Denier" is obviously a BLP violation; as it implies that there is something wrong with scientists who hold a minority view; as opposed to seeing them as a natural part of a scientific discourse. That's basically an anti-science view as dissenting views and open debate are important in all science. But "climate change sceptics" is also misleading; since in most cases the issue for debate is human impact on climate change more than the existence of the change that are up for debate (they may also doubt the prognosis for further cliamate change and/or the negative effects of such changes). All in all, this is too complicated to get correct in a short category; the list category is called "Scientists opposed to the mainstream view on climate change" or something similar. Iselilja (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• There are more than two options: doubters, critics, or "skeptics and deniers" would all be a middle ground. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Forum I strongly agree with the sensitivity shown in this conversation toward categorizing people as "deniers" when they would likely reject that label and think we should find a middle ground between skeptics and deniers. At the same time, the frequent viewpoint in the CFD nominations that this group of people is objectively wrong (they are) so we should apply this unwanted label seemed inappropriate to me. Nonetheless, this is the wrong forum.

Category nominations need to occur in the CFD pages where they are centrally located. As much trouble as interested editors here had finding the official category discussion, it would be even more unlikely for editors to find an unofficial category discussion on this page. There is an open nomination to reverse the name back to to skeptics here and that is the correct forum for input (pro/con or other). RevelationDirect (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Reconsider change Many of the "deniers" do not deny the existence of climate change, but only challenge the cause. The previous label, "skeptic", captured this, while calling this group "deniers" does not. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That was my reason for supporting the name change: edit: I had a similar but different reason: Helps more clearly distinguish between skeptics and those who think change is beneficial. People in the latter group should not be in the category of course Ssscienccce (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC) edit: 20:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wrong forum here. CFD is the right forum for these discussions, see link offered by RevelationDirect below. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Those who hold a position here because of what they "know to be the truth" are precisely analogous to those who favour or oppose any "truth" in the first place. Rather, we should divorce this from what we "know" or "believe" or "believe we know" and stick strictly to the precept that people should not be categorized for their beliefs except on the basis of categories they place themselves in by stating their own self-categorization.

Else we are as bad as any who have labeled folks on the basis of beliefs as "heretics" or "witches" or any other category susceptible of "guilt by association" tactics. I, for one, have always opposed "guilt by association" arguments on Wikipedia and in real life, and if I be the only one left in the world holding that personal belief, if I be the only one in the world in my self-identification in the category of "do not classify people because they differ from you in religion or any other belief at all" then I proudly assert my position in that category. Collect (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy delete category Since this is a BLP issue and WP:BLPCAT disfavors this sort of "known sinners" category for living people, the category should be deleted immediately pending some consensus on whether any category name change would pass muster.--agr (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note The CfR was not properly noted on the article pages affected at all. The discussion had far fewer participants than the current discussion. Further such comments as

"But climate change deniers are not engaging in scientific skepticism, but rather political rhetoric and ideology"' ,

" I'm saying this for NPOV, even though I personally agree they should be ridiculed.",

"Valid science is not a "Point of view." It isn't controversial among anyone with any scholarship in the subject matter. We don't have to pretend there is a real controversy because there are a small number of fanatics out there who cry "controversy." We don't treat the flat-Earthers that way either"

appear on their face to say that the change was designed to make a statement in Wikipedia's voice about everyone in the category whether or not we can provide reliable sources that the persons affected are 'deniers' . As such, the "rename" was seeking to make a point which could not be properly made about each living person affected, thus should be considered improper from the start.

In fact, the reasons explicitly given for the rename in the discussion before were and remain violative of WP:BLP, violative ofWP:RS, violative of WP:NPOV and of common decency about categorization of living persons. Wikipedia should never be used as a weapon to show how wrong anyone is, how evil they are, or how much they oppose truth - our task is to make an encyclopedia which will pass the "laugh test" in another century. Collect (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct Procedure @Collect: I certainly agree that the current category name is inappropriate and was one of the few editors to oppose the original nomination. Proceduraly, the CfR was fine though and the appropriate tag can be seen here. The good news, is that there is an open nomination to reverse the use of "deniers". RevelationDirect (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I would note that there were actually only a few supporters of the use of "deniers" (some of whom sought the name of a category as a means of publically shaming those placed in that category for the express purpose of "ridicule." IMHO, those !votes were a red flag to anyone closing the discussion that there were major problems with use of any category anywhere on Wikipedia for such a purpose. Collect (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Our article Climate change denial states that "Climate change skepticism and climate change denial form an overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics; both reject to a greater or lesser extent current scientific opinion on climate change." Perhaps we could retitle the category to Category:Climate change deniers and skeptics to cover that entire spectrum? By the way, we have an article, List of climate change deniers, which is actually called List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. But maybe we could also start an article called List of climate change deniers and skeptics, which would encompass non-scientists too, and would, like List of atheists in music, require a direct quote (listed in the footnote) for each person. From that list article we could accurately tell who belonged in the Category. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Softlavender, With respect, I feel that this would be a poor solution. There is a reasonable likelihood for readers to assume the worst of members in a combined category. And there is not necessarily a consensus above that climate change skeptics is any better as a category. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Climate change deniers The overwhelming scientific evidence supports the theory of climate change. Sceptic instead of denier is transparent POV-pushing. How long until right-wing POV pushers suggest renaming the Holocaust deniers category to Holocaust sceptics? Also, climate change deniers matches the article Climate change denial. Finally, this is blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This discussion should be closed as an abuse of process AusLondonder (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

AusLondonder put these additional 26 BLPs in the category "Climate Change Deniers": Cory Bernardi Tracy Byrnes Ben Carson George Christensen (politician) Derek Clark Ted Cruz Bob Day Steve Fielding Bernie Finn Nathan Gill Nick Griffin Roger Helmer Dennis Jensen Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) Alan Keyes Nigel Lawson Jean-Marie Le Pen Peter Lilley Ian Macdonald (Australian politician) John Madigan (Australian politician) Deroy Murdock Paul Nuttall Benny Peiser Peter Phelps (politician) Chris Smith (broadcaster) Roger Wicker Brian Wilshire. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And your point is, User:Peter Gulutzan? AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I said in my initial post what my claim is. You decided to intervene, and your edits have similarities, so I showed them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I support User:MastCell and others here that per WP:BLPCAT it is a really bad idea to have a category called "Climate change deniers" into which we put living people. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not a deletion discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary. This is the BLP Noticeboard and our WP:BLP policy clearly states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." A bot insertion of a "sinners" category on over a hundred bios of living persons cannot possibly be verified as properly sourced so this category should be deleted immediately.--agr (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think there is a scientific consensus that the quickest and most effective way to stop exacerbating climate change would be to rapidly switch over to nuclear power. Can we have a category for people who deny that? I would support such a category if we wish to have categories like "climate change denier" that are designed to give BLP subjects a poor reputation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per Mastcell and many others. (If this turns out to be the wrong venue to argue for deletion interpret my position and being in favor of removing every entry from the cat. If some actually belong, add them following a discussion. Maybe there are some, but most in the cat do not belong.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete All. Obvious attempt to demonize people with unpopular viewpoints is obvious. If any are legit, they can be re-added after the mass deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment This is not a deletion discussion. That takes place at WP:CFD. The astounding incompetence of some editors is deeply worrying. The cat corresponds to the article Climate change denial. The cat corresponds to independent, reliable sources. The matter should not have been brought here. The appropriate place is CFD. Could someone address why we can have these cats, if Climate change deniers is not allowed?
• Category:Holocaust deniers
• Category:Armenian Genocide deniers
• Category:Nanking Massacre deniers
• Category:Rwandan Genocide deniers
• Category:Japanese war crime deniers

Sadly, Wikipedia is turning its back on scientific source in favour of becoming a poor imitation of Conservapedia. Far-right politicians and their conspiracy theories are being given undue weight, fringe theories being promoted. AusLondonder (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hardly a NPOV approach: I don't see how Patrick Moore (environmentalist) could be considered a far-right anything, for one. Indeed, it seems like the whole point is to obfuscate any distinction among anyone who in any way or on any basis questions the political orthodoxy on this. Going through the scientists subcat I see people who merely question the certainty of the science, people who question the politics driving the scientific research, climatologists and meteorologists who don't agree with the science in their own field, and engineers and the like whose authority for expressing an opinion is at best doubtful. What it really looks like to me is a politically-motivated attempt to label them all as kooks. The comparison to long-settled matters of historical record is inapt. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Request for more admin input I'm asking -- not due to their authority but because I guess they've experienced the rules a bit more -- the four administrators who've been involved in this: MastCell, Masem, S Philbrick, agr. What do you think are the appropriate next steps so that we can come to a speedy resolution? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had the perfect solution. After watching the intense feelings expressed on this issue, not just here but carried out on the talk pages of articles such as Climate change denial, I did some thinking about the theory of categorization, helped by the article Categorization, and realized we were trying to solve the wrong problem. Roughly speaking, we were trying to debate the best term to be applied to a group of people, with some wanting to call the collection "deniers", others wanting "skeptics", and others suggesting alternatives. However, the problem isn't the identification of the correct word or phrase, the problem is that the collection isn't a proper category.

Categories ought to be "clearly defined, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive". That is generally true of most categories but fails miserably when it comes to this set of people. Note that while one aspect of the discussion is the word choice, and equally important part of the discussion is which people belong in the category even given one of the several word choices. That ought to be a big red flag. Imagine, for a second, that some outside force simply degrees that the category name will be "deniers", or "skeptics", or "deniers and skeptics". With the debate be over? Only the narrow debate about the word and then the debate will be over whether person X belongs in the category.

This debate has carried over to the CfD discussion, but that discussion has a framing problem. It was presented as a discussion of whether Category:Climate change deniers should be renamed to Category:Climate change skeptics. While it is supposed to be a discussion, which allows all options and some have weighed in with a recommendation for removal, most of the participants are focused in on which of those two options is the best.

I thought I'd try cutting the Gordian knot and request that the category be deleted rather than argue over the right terminology. However, when I made this proposal here, it was procedurally closed, on the understandable argument that the discussion was already taking place. While understandable, I think it was flawed, as it missed the framing problem. It currently looks to me like some admin is going to have some god-awful challenge to close a discussion and choose one of the bad options. Once closed, I will try again to make the case that it ought to be deleted, but it should be nice if we could save the effort and delete it now. I think too many participants are entrenched in their own view, and see it as a tool to advance their position in the general global warming debate. Would be better off if we thought about it as a category not as a global warming tool and realize that it's not a proper category.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree on pretty much everything you say here. I've been trying to look at how similar issues have been treated in the past, and superficially there seems to be a lot of overlap with the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories. Is that right or am I missing something? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment (Non-Admin) @Sphilbrick: CfD discussions begin with a specific proposal (in this case rename) but the conversations often end with a different outcomes than the nomination. You'll see a lot of delete votes and alternative rename votes in that discussion. (If you haven't already, please do add your thoughts into that main CfD nomination.) In this case, I think the first third of the discussion was distracted not by the rename proposal but by procedural objections over reopening a recently closed discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Jurisdiction Who ultimately owns enforcement of WP:BLPCAT: the BLP side or the cat side? @Peter Gulutzan: and I were having a side conversation on his talk page about this. There's been accusations of WP:FORUMSHOP here but I really think this is a valid question. For now, I've started putting notices (below) for open category discussion with WP:BLPCAT implications to encourage more participation. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

We didn't specifically discuss WP:BLPCAT on my talk page. I don't bother with WP:FORUMSHOP allegations because this isn't the proper forum. I thank Sphilbrick for replying; I realize that the other administrators may lack time. I'm thinking now that requesting a close could work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Climate change theory opponents or similar, per WP:NPOV. Yes, climate change is real, and yes, it's anthropogenic, and yes, it's a crisis and political action is desperately needed. But the current name of this category isn't helping any of that. -- The Anome (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This is flawed, User:The Anome. Some issues do not require equal weight to all sides. Should Wikipedia take a neutral position on the Holocaust or whether the Earth is flat? AusLondonder (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not take a neutral position on climate change. Our article on Global warming reports what authoritative sources say on the topic without equivocation. In particular it says "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2014 that scientists were more than 95% certain that global warming is being caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human (anthropogenic) activities." However we have strict policy WP:BLP on biographical information that requires any contentious information be well sourced. "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." As the arguments over the name for the disputed category make clear, positions on climate change can be highly nuanced. I looked at a couple of the articles to which the category was originally added by bot and found Andrew Montford who's is quoted as saying "I believe that CO2, other things being equal, will make the planet warmer. The six million dollar question is how much warmer. I'm less of a sceptic than people think. My gut feeling is still sceptical but I don't believe it's beyond the realms of possibility that the AGW hypothesis might be correct. It's more the case that we don't know and I haven't seen anything credible to persuade me there's a problem." Does that make him a denier? Some might think so other might not. But the connection does not rise to the level required by WP:BLP. Categories are particularly problematic because there is no mechanism for adding a source to a category designation within an article. So our policy discourages label categories for living persons. The category was removed from Montford's article a few days ago, but who is going to check all 133 entries in the category and its sub categories on a regular basis?--agr (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I intend to go to WP:ANRFC and ask "Closure by admin requested for WP:BLPN discussion 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once", on Thursday November 12, unless other editors say more time is needed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: My only hope that this would be closed in tandem with the CFD discussion. I don't think two dueling close results would be constructive. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have placed the request at WP:ANRFC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Cat per WP:BLP ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.") Labeling people who think climate change is beneficial or who doubt that the US acting alone can reverse climate change while China and India increase CO2 production without limit as "climate change deniers" is a classic example of an unsourced negative claim in a BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross

Rick Alan Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like some clarity regarding Wikipedia policy concerning BLP. My bio has a "Further Reading" section, which includes published works by me and about me, which further explain my work and history. I recently suggested at the Talk page that my book "Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out" be included at Further Reading. The book is published in Chinese by Peace Book in Hong Kong, CreateSapace in English at Amazon and will soon be published in Italian. This request was refused by editors who instead relegated the book to a newly created subsection titled "Sources" and then cut footnotes listed in References. It sees appropriate that the book be listed at Further Reading and that the footnotes be properly restored in References. It's of concern that the same rules cited by some editors don't seem to apply to all BLP entries equally. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan Am I missing something here? Would appreciate some feedback. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Normally, if a book is used as a reference in the article, it is not included again in a "further reading" section. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

But shouldn't a footnote be complete with book title?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

All due respect, I can't help but see your request here as wanting permission to add WP:BOOKSPAM and self promotion to help sell more books. Wikipedia isn't your personal online resume service. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the book relevant if the BLP is an author and the book explains the author's work?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Relevant, but not to the extent you seem to think it is or want the article to reflect. What you are wanting seems to go into undue weight territory. What's more, Rick, it's already been explained to you several times at the article's talk page what policy is on the matter. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi—I don't think undue weight applies. The subject of this biography is raising a valid point. The reason for notability of the subject of the biography is cults and getting out of them. A reader understandably wants access to a subject that a book addresses. I don't think a book that is squarely on the topic of the article should be construed as constituting undue weight. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have moved all books to a "Books" section. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The books have been removed, based on an edit summary that mentions that the books are self-published. I have also reorganized the sections to meet our standards for BLPs. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The book is not self published. It was published in Chinese by Peace Book in Hong Kong, the English version is released through CreateSpace at Amazon. See Hong Kong newspapers with interviews about the book http://cultsinsideout.com/pdf/a5_screen.pdf Also see http://cultsinsideout.com/pdf/a14-0722.pdf Why are BLP rules not applied consistently? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan Note self-published books, self published sources cited, etc. Also, how will anyone know what the footnote is citing without a book title at the Reference section of my BLP?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

CreateSpace's website states, "CreateSpace provides free tools to help you self-publish and distribute your books...on Amazon.com and other channels". So, yes, it is considered self-published if released through CreateSpace. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I did choose to self-publish the English version through CreateSpace. But the Chinese version in not self published. It is published by Peace Book Publishing in Hong Kong. There will also be an Italian language version by an Italian publisher coming out soon. Please note the links to proof of Chinese press reports about the book and note photo of Chinese book version.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any info on a publisher named "Peace Book Publishing". - Cwobeel (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Throwing my two cents in about the bibliography section. In practice, people can have a bibliography section even if their works are self-published and we have various articles on self-published authors that have achieved notability for their works. (Not many, but we do have them and most have had their self-published works republished by mainstream publishers.) Saying that a self-published book cannot be listed on Wikipedia would have a negative effect on the articles for these authors, especially as I'm unaware of any criteria that specifically forbids the listing of self-published works. However that said, there are instances where listing works in general are unnecessary or even frowned upon. This would be in cases where the author has only published one work or has published so many works (15-20+) that listing their complete bibliography would put undue weight on the page. If an author has too many or too few works, it's usually better to summarize it in a general section rather than list the books in a typical bibliography section. It looks like this has been resolved in the article, but I did want to throw this out there just so we don't have people removing bibliography sections based on the fact that a book is self-published. They can be listed, it's just usually that most self-published authors don't pass guidelines. I don't want to throw more fuel on to the fire, but I did want to clarify this one point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion seems to be an attempt at forum shopping. The issue was already discussed here where Mr. Ross was basically told numerous times what policy is on the issue and that continued attempts to influence the article on him would not be met favorably. The final comment from an editor to Ross expressing understandable impatience with him was this: Re. "Why put it under Sources?" – Really?? Because it is used as a source, evidently. Mr. Ross, please stop wasting our time on this topic. If your book attracted substantial press or the like we might list it in a "Bibliography" section above the references, but as long as there are no reliable sources attesting something of that kind, it stays under the references section as a "source" while it can be, and is, used as a source for the content of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC). Besides myself, editors involved in the discussion also suspected self-promotion. The discussion was closed on 11/4/2015. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The book has attracted substantial attention. It has been reported about in the Hong Kong press. It was also featured at the Hong Kong book fair by Peace Book Publishing, the Chinese version publisher. I have done interviews in which the book was prominently cited and/or featured including CNN Nancy Grace, LipTV and New York radio. Also Sirius Radio interview with Jenny McCarthy and the documentary "Deprogrammed," which premiered at a Toronto film festival. The book includes a chapter about the history of cult intervention work.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There are other issues with this article. The subject is notable for his involvement in the Jason Scott case and there are some mentions in primary sources about an unsolicited involvement in the Waco siege. So, it may conform to WP:GNG. Having said that, we now have an entire article based on limited sources (mainly the subject's website and some obscure sources), with content such as his working at his cousin's car-salvage company], and other material that may be deemed not notable at all. The article may benefit from a through cleanup and more eyes. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not notable for the Jason Scott case, which occurred more than 20 years ago. I am notable for the Cult Education Institute database launched in 1996, my court expert testimony in 10 states including US Federal Court, university lectures, media work, blog and now book. I would like to better understand how Wikipedia BLP works. Are the same guidelines and rules applied consistently to all BLP entries? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan It seems like one BLP has one set of guidelines while another does not.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Notability in Wikipedia is assessed in the context of secondary, reliable sources reporting on significant viewpoints about an article's subject. You may want to read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOTABLITY. If there is significant coverage of your book or your media work and testimony then it should not be an issue. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There has been and this is well documented and reported by reliable sources. I am interviewed by the press, radio and media on monthly basis. Most recently the Guardian newspaper in London cited and linked to the Cult Education Institute as a resource about the Kabbalah Centre see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/26/kabbalah-religion-marcus-weston-madonna Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A passing mention of your website does not constitute significant coverage, I'm afraid. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Rick, you've violated WP:FORUMSHOP by coming here. You've already been told numerous times at the article talk page why your request isn't going to happen, you've been told here, as well. At this point, all I'm seeing is WP:IDHT. As Frances Schonken already pointed out to you a few days ago, you're exhausting the community's patience and wasting the time of the volunteers who contribute here. Enough, okay? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

OKRick Alan Ross (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a question. I was previously told by Wikipedia through emails to come here if I felt the editing at my bio is unfair. Am I to understand now that whatever is determined by editors at my bio Talk page is to be accepted as fair and final? And that coming here is no longer suggested, but rather forum shopping?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's forum shopping because consensus regarding the content on the book was already reached and policy pointed out to you. You didn't like the consensus, so you came here to try again. Plus, you were told that you have exhausted the patience of several editors and wasted their time. Yet, you are here and even after being told to let it go (see "drop the stick"), and agreeing to do you, you're back again. Like others have said and I have said, this is really starting to look like an attempt to get your book noticed -- a form of advertising via Wikipedia. That is simply not appropriate and it violates policy. I will ask you again: please drop this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. So the emails I received from Wikipedia directing me here were somewhat misleading. Your decision is that I must accept whatever the editors at the Talk page determine is fair and they are the final arbiters. The fact that I have a published book reported about by the media is up to them to decide upon and determine regarding its weight and relevance.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You came here, which is fine, but there was already consensus made at the article talk page. Please read both WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FORUMSHOP. And, I thought we were done. You said "OK" (here) when I told you it was time to drop the stick. Enough is enough. The policy is what it is. I'm sorry you don't like it, but Wikipedia policies and guidelines on this have been in place for quite some time. Please, please stop. If you do not, I will be forced to take this to another forum where the larger community (including administrators) may not be as patient with you as Cwobeel and I have. My patience is at an end. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok I read the links you posted on consensus and forum shopping again. But it is quite confusing when different people acting on behalf of Wikipedia offer conflicting advice. So according to your understanding of consensus whatever is decided upon by editors active at the Talk page page of my bio is the final word despite the advice I was emailed by Wikipedia to come to this page and post if I thought that consensus was unfair. That advice must be disregarded. Right? Just trying to sort out which Wikipedia advice and interpretation of the rules to follow in the future. it gets confusing, but I'm doing my best.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I personally think there was no problem at all in raising the issue here -- it's not forum shopping at all. It would be forum shopping if you went to multiple noticeboards -- but bringing it to BLPN is not forum shopping. Having said that: I don't disagree with what other editors have said about the book itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. I will come here if I cannot resolve something at the Talk page. I will only come here after I advise whatever editors are working at my bio, before presenting a editing disagreement here. We do disagree about the book, which has been cited in numerous media interviews and press reports and is published by an old Hong Kong publishing house. Nevertheless, I realize that I must accept the Wikipedia view of my book as somehow unworthy of inclusion at my bio. Thank you for your comment.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, sorry, but it truly is forum shopping. He already had his answer at the article talk page, and that discussion was closed as he was continuing to demonstrate WP:IDHT. He didn't like the consensus that was reached, so he came here looking for a different answer. Keep in mind, this individual's living is made by the art of persuasion and wearing people down. Not that there's anything wrong with being able to do that successfully in a profession, but in Wikipedia, it's just not an indicator of collegial and cooperative, community-focused behavior. Note the comments at the thread on the talk page that was closed: more than one editor was exasperated by him, and more than one editor believed the impetus behind his tendentious behavior was about self-promotion and the release of his book. Forum shopping and unrelenting attempts at persuasion to get what he wants in addition to WP:COI? Yes, most certainly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It's never forum-shopping to bring a discussion to a single noticeboard. More than that: it's exactly the right action for a COI-afflicted editor. No guarantee that the answer here will be any different -- but it's entirely appropriate to raise the matter here. Doing so could give a different perspective relative to the way things are seen by editors with long-standing involvement in an article. 23:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Nomoskedasticity (talk)

I think we welcome input from subjects of biographies when raised with care as in this instance and I think this noticeboard should be considered the very standard place for recourse and I think there should be no discouragement presented to the subject of this biography for raising this question here. Bus stop (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This is the right place for the issue. It's fundamentally a content problem, and this board can fix content problems. AN/I just blocks people. Properly, the injured party should be discussing problems with the article on the article talk page, but not editing the article itself, and experienced editors should be fixing the article. This was brought up at WP:COIN, but since it's a biographical article, it's more of a BLP issue than a COI issue. John Nagle (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• A thread at is open at ANI discussing the behavior of Rick Alan Ross. Jbh^Talk 22:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Note The BLP at issue was affected by name in the famed Scientology case a few years back. I suggest that those who are most anxious to figuratively whack Ross read the material therein. Collect (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Where can it be read? Link? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology and Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia probably. clpo13_(talk) 22:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It is because of the problems he had there, including impersonators on his article, that I was willing to work with him for so long. I am still, and always will be, willing to work with him on factual errors and BLP violations. I was willing to work with him on some minor tweaks but he wants things the way he wants them and no other way. He may back off for a bit but will soon be back at it no matter how many times he is told something is against policies and guidelines. I feel he uses editors AGF to get 'minor' change after 'minor' change and then tries to wear them down when he stops getting what he wants.

TL/DR he has used up the grace from the Scientology issues. If a BLP issue comes up he can and should expect it to be addressed promptly but the micromanaging of his article needs to stop. (Also note he gave no notice this thread was being opened - and he knows he must do so - not a good faith move.) Jbh^Talk 02:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Show me that stricture. If an editor is named, that editor must be notified, but that does not appear to be the case at hand. Collect (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have raised issues about consistency in applying Wikipedia rules regarding BLP. Also, the way some editors have micro managed the editing process to slant my bio to their POV. I understand that all I can do is raise these issues at the Talk page and hope for fairness. But at times it seems their is no interest in fairness at the Talk page. I hope that I am wrong about this.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem you will have re "consistency" is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Consistency isn't really the way "fairness" is understood here. I am interested in fairness, though, and I think this section (and the associated ANI thread) has established pretty conclusively that you will not face sanctions for bringing matters here. I suggest being judicious in doing that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• It doesn't belong at Further reading, as we keep that for independent sources. However if you're notable for your writing work, and if a text forms a significant part of that corpus, then it could go under Publications.

Thanks for asking BTW, and thanks for using this forum. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

COI tag

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.

---

BLP page has been repeatedly templated as "COI". Problem is that the actual neutrality of the extant article is not being discussed n the talk page, as required by use of that template. The only claim by Jbhunley appears to be based on the conflicted person properly using the article talk page and noticeboards to get his objections to certain material being stressed in the BLP. ("He has managed to keep a lot of extremely critical material out of the article.") but makes no assertion that Mr. Ross has made any substantia edits to the BLP or that the article fails NPOV as a result. Is the template being properly used (and possibly edit warred into place)? Note the talk page already identifies the editor, so this templating, IMHO, is being used improperly. The BLP is also up for AfD as well. Collect (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Collect: This should not be in a standalone report, rather, should be deleted here and then added to the already open report on RAR above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The report concerns a biography of a living person. And as it concerns a matter not dealt with above, it can stand. Title amended to assuage your concerns. Collect (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Frances Schocken has removed it. If someone re-adds it, I'll remove it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Alternatly, you could discuss the matter on the talk page, where you opened a discussion only an hour or so ago. You know, the page the page the people editing the article watch. Jbh^Talk 18:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively -- you, yourself, can read the effing talk page and note my edits there already before making snarky comments here implying that I did not use the article talk page. You know the page the people editing the page watch. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2015 (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.

Proposal: re BLP § Privacy of personal information and using primary sources

In light of Talk:Michael Lohan#Birth dates and the previous BLP/N discussions linked therein, I would like to see something in "stone" (or as much as possible within a Wiki) with respect to birth dates—or death dates, etc.—of relatives within biographies of living persons. My take: it's both trivial and a DOB issue unless the date(s) in question can be demonstrated to have some relevance to the specific subject of the article. (Using Michael Lohan as an example, he first became notable following his eldest daughter's rise to fame, not for her birthdate.)

With that in mind, DOB currently reads, in pertinent part:

With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. ...

... and I would propose this change:

With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth for an article's subject that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. Dates (such as birth or death) of an article subject's relatives are relevant only if demonstrably pertinent to the subject. ...

(Proposed changes in boldface per the strike-old bold-new standard; I'm not proposing that they be added in boldface. ) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 23:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I tried something similar before. You will find you come up against people who want to include everything about a BLP's private life in their article. Support change though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

RfCs are supposed to be written neutrally. This is anything but. That comment made, I add:

• Oppose - As explicated in the RfC that closed here in September, children's birth dates are a standard part of any professional biography, whether in a book by Robert Caro or a Who's Who entry. When celebrities or their representatives issue a press release announcing their children's birth, subsequently published online and in magazine sources cumulatively reaching tens of millions of people, it has become extremely public information. To say that Wikipedia should censor the birthdate of Kim Kardashian's child goes against both common sense and professional standards of biography.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

1) I made every effort to write this neutrally and still offer the reason for the request; 2) WP is an encyclopedia, not a professional biography. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 23:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you really mean to argue that Wikipedia should have less than professional standards. And an encyclopedia should be at least up to the standards of popular-press and academic biographies. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Not my argument. At all. Ever. Sorry; I'm going to come off as a wise-ass if I'm not careful. I argue that a professional biography is specifically designed and written to include every fact that can be garnered about its subject. Conversely, an encyclopedia is designed and written to include the notable and the relevant. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 23:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Especially in regard to non-notable minor children. In no way does having the exact birthdate and name of a non-notable minor child of the article subject enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject. The only exception I can think of is in the case of people like the Duggar Family who have made a living from the notability of their children via their (now-cancelled) reality show. Just because it's readily available online, that doesn't mean it's encyclopedic or inclusion worthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Every birthdate in Wikipedia is already online, especially celebrity children whose births are covered obsessively by pop-culture sites (not to mention the parents' own social media). This is encyclopedic information and banning it will absolutely not prevent a single identity from being stolen. Should we rename Sarah Jessica Parker to just Sarah Jessica so nobody can use Wikipedia to figure out her son's mother's maiden name? —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment For actual "notable persons" the date of birth is a commonly found fact. Dates of births etc. of those who are not notable, however, (especially with regard to third parties, minors, etc.) should often' be excluded. I find the use of "identity theft" as a preamble to be not very useful. "Full names" are generally readily fond in reliable sources, and Wikipedia ought not decide that we do not give any middle names of people <g> as it would be too risible. I would remove that preamble, and state that we follow what the best reliable sources do with regard to any person, with the added caveat that birth dates and names of those who are not notable, but who are mentioned in any article, are absolutely not required. Collect (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Collect, Wikimandia and Tenebrae. The proposed wording seems to be addressing a personal quibble and not a significant problem with biographies on Wikipedia. The identity theft argument is laughable. DOBs are basic and indispensable facts. As an encyclopaedia we can and must exhibit them; I see no strong argument against doing so. That being said, I commend the want to establish inclusion criteria of some sort. We cannot rely on this text for justifying adding absurd facts such as someone's cousin's cousin's DOB to an article, which is especially prone to happen via PR-editors. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tenebrae and Wikimandia. Perfectly valid to include names and birth dates IF RELIABLY SOURCED. Any "privacy concerns" are entirely moot when the parents themselves announce such births and when other reliable sources announce them. To not give a birthdate or name is simply vague and I informative for readers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose any rely on editors' discretion. Where notable relatives have widely publicised relatives' personal information and the relatives have not objected, it seems proper to consider that personal information for the biography of the notable party. Where the notable party has not publicised (or where the relative has objected and/or withdrawn from public life) it seems intrusive. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Stuartyeates, an article's subject directly announcing the birth of a relative—say, a la Kimye—would indeed be "demonstrably pertinent" within my proposal. Your comment reads as if in support; do I read it correctly? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:13, 9 November 2015

• Oppose per Snuggums and others. We should not be censoring information that is reliably sourced, readily available online and in many cases made public by the parents themselves. Calidum T|C 02:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by proposing editor: at least three points have been/are being made in these discussions which, in my view, are false arguments:

1. Reliably sourced birth dates should be included. They are—in their respective subjects' articles. To use the instant example, Michael Jr.'s, Lindsay's and Ali's pages all include their birth dates as published. Their inclusion in their father's is entirely peripheral and irrelevant (he originally became known following his eldest daughter's fame, not her birth).
2. By not including the data, Wikipedia must be hiding/censoring it. Just because someone with a modicum of search skills can find someone's birth date does not necessarily mean a Wiki article simply hands it to them. (This is an ancillary argument anyway, speaking solely to the issue of including birth dates at all, and does not address this proposal.)
3. There's no reason to not include relatives' birth dates. Yes, there is: unless it can be demonstrated that a relative's dates of birth/death/graduation/marriage/bris/etc. are specifically relevant to the subject's article, they are trivial if not fancruft. (In short, "Why not?" is not a valid response to "Why is this here?")

I should also mention that the identity theft language is already there. My proposal does not affect that in any way. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 02:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Birth, getting married, having children and death are typically milestones in one's life and are vital information for an encyclopedic biography when available. Surely we are not disparaging Michael Lohan by suggesting it was his daughter's fame, and not the birth of his children, that are critical life events in a biography about him. Your spouse's birthdays and your cousin's birthdays are not significant in your biography, but your children's birthdays are! —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You're correct: by not including his children's birth dates—as opposed to, say, not including his children at all—we are in fact not disparaging Mr. Lohan. 😜 —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree that any of the numbered 1, 2, 3 responses hold water. Children's birth dates are not "trivial fancruft" but as much a standard a part of biography as the death dates of subjects' parents or background on subjects' spouses — read any biography of a president or a movie star or, I dunno, Henry Ford. Robert Caro is not including "trivial fancruft" when he writes about when LBJ and Lady Bird Johnson had their daughters. The reasons for this could fill a semester of college class — there are whole courses on writing biography — but at its most elementary and basic, the timeline of when someone has a family is integral to understanding a person. And so there is every reason to include at bare minimum the birth dates of subjects' children when released by the subjects or their representatives themselves.

I understand the RfC proposer is not a professional journalist, biographer or academic, and that's OK ... we're all volunteers trying to do what's best. But the idea of not including such basic information is as unusual to me as suggesting a restaurant not have salt on its tables because high blood-pressure "is a serious ongoing concern."

Finally, I do need to point out that obfuscating by making straw-man arguments about "graduation/marriage/bris", which no one here is talking about, is improper. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I was a professional journalist, but that's really irrelevant. Apparently, I'm not allowed a sense of humor, either ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll take you at your word and I apologize — and I mean it; I'm being sincere — for any assumption I made that you may not have been a journalist at some point. I have to say, that just makes the position you've taken all the more remarkable to me. I acknowledge your good intentions, and I hope you'll acknowledge that the use of what you say is humor has the same practical effect as saying it seriously would have had in terms of cloud the issue, which I accept was not what you meant to do. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged (and the entire reason I kept the bris joke, considering the potential for accusations of racism, was to be obviously tongue-in-cheek). Sorry to take so long to reply; the !votes and comments entirely peripheral to the actual proposal led me to cut and run. I won't be back to this thread. 😜 —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 21:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you work for TMZ? I'm still trying to understand how the date someone's child becomes a celebrity is more important than the date that someone became a parent. I'm not familiar with that value system. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No—and I'm still trying to figure out whether you're trying to disparage me or TMZ. Seriously, the argument serves to misdirect: the birth of your child may have been the greatest day of your life, but it is only notable in encyclopedic terms when presented within your child's article, unless it is because of that birth that you became notable (and even then it's a potential WP:INHERIT issue). We're not discussing a value system; we're discussing an encyclopedia. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, the birth of children is an encyclopedic fact vital in any biographical article along with the subject's own birthdate, own death, and any marriage, and this is not a new concept. The "famedate" of when any relative became a sparkly celebrity is fortunately not regarded as vital. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

*sigh* the birth of children is not in dispute. The birth date is. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 12:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose.  Concerning the relevancy issue, just the fact that we're disagreeing on it suggests that the answer is not clear or self-evident.  And to the extent that there is doubt, I believe we should play it safe and include the information in question.  (The reader can always ignore it if he's not interested.)
  To the extent that privacy is concerned, I would simply cite WP:NOTCENSORED, as long as the information is accurate and well sourced.
  Richard27182 (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• oppose. I was notified of this discussion on my talk page. I first became aware of this issue when I closed this RFC. The result of the RFC was that dates of birth of children and other family members can be relevant information, and should be included at the discretion of the editors involved in the article, assuming of course that there are verifiable, reliable secondary sources. No further tweaks are necessary in my opinion.--Aervanath (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - unless you're the world's oldest something or youngest something, are DOBs actually pertinent to any articles? Not really. This change would not work and would hinder the encyclopedia's scope and worth. GiantSnowman 22:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

[inserted: Nov. 10, 2015]
ping:@GiantSnowman:  No disrespect intended, but I find your above posting somewhat puzzling. You suggest that dates of birth are not really pertinent to articles; but you !vote against a proposal that would restrict their use in articles.  Richard27182 (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: None taken - let me try to clarify. There's lots of information that would be deemed non-pertinent with regards to notability (date of birth; place of birth; nationality etc.) but which should remain in articles because it is useful information, supported by reliable sources, which gives a more complete encyclopedic article. GiantSnowman 11:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi GiantSnowman.  If I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying basically is that, while you consider the type of information in question to not be pertinent, you nevertheless would be opposed to adding a restriction against it in the MOS.  Am I interpreting that right? Richard27182 (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: yes. GiantSnowman 12:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Supportish. - my thinking is somewhat similar to Winkelvi's. If a DOB doesn't add anything to the information value of the article, why include it. But I don't think you can set it in stone because sometimes DOBs add to the information value of the article. Red Fiona (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - no evidence presented here that Wikipedia is in anyway increasing visibility of a cited birthrate in a way that increases probability of identity theft. So it would seem the argument would come down to relevancy and usefulness on an encyclopedic nature. I would argue yes, helping trace family lineage over time is one very well know use of encyclopedias. Especially for lesser known notables. With that said, I think adding poorly cited birth dates to Wikipedia should be more vigorously policed (on par with profanity bots). Once Wikipedia cites a birth date, it's one fact about a person that gets meme'd out into the interwebs more than almost anything else. If we get it wrong initially, it creates a citation nightmare later as many respectable sources follow our lead (making me questing their respectability). I've edited more than a few biographies where tracking down a credible source for a birth date was made difficult because so many sources followed our lead instead of tracking down a more credible source. I'm not proposing anything, just venting to other editors concerned about birth date sourcing. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

David Plaisted

Hi, The article about David Plaisted only quotes self-published papers. Should everyone who publishes something have a Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geochron (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Should likely be nominated for AFD. Quis separabit? 21:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

He is mentioned in books by others on the topic of AI etc. - I suspect he is notable in his field, but that does not always mean one is covered by the NYT. Collect (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

[1] shows his work being specifically cited by others. GoogleScholar shows a large number of citations by others as well. Collect (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Samuel P.N. Cook

Samuel P.N. Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My name is Samuel P.N. Cook, and I am the living person on this page.

I would like to request the removal or edit of this page because there are edits on this page that are slanderous and unsubstantiated.

These comments in particular should be removed from the history of the post.

• (cur | prev) 04:03, 25 May 2011‎ Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,071 bytes) (-224)‎ . . (take to AFD please) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 12:33, 24 May 2011‎ Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,295 bytes) (+178)‎ . . (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW)) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 18:02, 23 May 2011‎ Rjwilmsi (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,117 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (→‎Insurgent Amnesty Program: Citation parameter fixes, , date, date, date, date using AWB (7718)) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 21:14, 18 November 2010‎ Topbanana (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,113 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Link repair: Salahuddin Province -> Salahuddin province - You can help!) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 01:38, 5 November 2010‎ RjwilmsiBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,113 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎References: Adding Persondata using AWB (7356)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 18:16, 16 September 2010‎ SmackBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,108 bytes) (+249)‎ . . (Date maintenance tags and general fixes: build 540:) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 12:02, 16 September 2010‎ Srich32977 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,859 bytes) (-35)‎ . . (tag notability IAW WP:MILPEOPLE; remove white space) (undo | thank)

I either want this page removed entirely, or these comments and the history removed.

Please let me know what i can do to make this happen.

Regards, Samuel P.N. Cook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescookpublishing (talk • contribs) 14:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Tempted to AFD this, it seems like the campaign he was involved in is what's notable rather than the person. Article is poorly sourced but I don't see anything thats an obvious BLP violation. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No showing of notability of the individual here, and it reads like an extended anecdote at best. Collect (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jamescookpublishing: The article has editorial issues, and as noted by others might not even qualify for inclusion. I'm puzzled though, by your list of comments which you requested removal. Those are comments in the edit history, which are very rarely removed even if text from the article is removed. I can explain each of them but I'll explain the most recent to just as an example. We have a process called WP:PROD, which roughly speaking, is a way to remove an article if there is no opposition. Editor Scott McDonnell felt this article ought to be removed under that process. Editor Richard Arthur Norton appears to have believe that it didn't qualify under that provision, and suggested that if someone felt the article should be deleted it should be taken to AFD, which is a different process for removal requiring a seven day. And allowing editors to weigh in pro and con. Both of these are technical editorial matters and I'm at a loss to understand why you feel they should be removed. Most of the others are even more innocuous simply identifying the nature of some very minor edits. Either I'm missing something or you're missing something.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Albert Brooks

This article seems to have come under attack recently and there's been a sequence of edits and reverts and/or partial reverts which have also removed content (as far as I can see). Needs more eyes I believe as I will cheerfully admit to being unable to work out where the last sane version of the page existed. As far as I can see, it's probably here. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wade Burleson

• Wade Burleson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Viatruth (talk · contribs)

Puffery and copyright violations, with the above account carrying the same name as this website [2], which is connected to the subject of this biography. Probably merits a block for the username. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Jonathon Hafetz

Subject's name is misspelled. Page should be moved to "Jonathan Hafetz."

See: See: http://law.shu.edu/Faculty/fulltime_faculty/Jonathan-Hafetz.cfm

Done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Killing of Cecil the lion

This article continues to produce controversy. After a long-term history of attacks by DHeyward on a source cited by RS, there's now been an insertion into the article that seems solely aimed at discrediting that source, without any backing by WP:RS. See bottom of new paragraph for newly inserted material. Also seeing the usual misconception again that BLP only applies in a certain way, when the policy is very clear on this. I'm not sure I'll be around all day to be cleaning up. Samsara 15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The bottom of that paragraph contained a sentence that had no source to support it. We don't want to include incorrect information in our articles, and so if there is a source for "None of those statements were [sic] correct", then fine -- as long as there are other good reasons to include this material. If DHeyward is doing some "original research" here, then we can draw the obvious conclusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No OR. It's part of WP:RSBREAKING and the presumption that breaking news stories are all primary sources and should not be used. The whole paragraph on lion infanticide was predicated on rival lions. Rodrigues initially postulated the "rival lion Jericho" would kill Cecil's cubs. Oxford corrected their relationship as an alliance. Rodrigues is quoted often in breaking news because he issues press releases that are quoted. i.e. "Spaniard killed Cecil" in Time[3] sourced to Rodriques. We now know it was an American dentist Palmer. “The next lion in the hierarchy, Jericho, will most likely kill all Cecil’s cubs so that he can insert his own bloodline into the females,” the chairman, Johnny Rodrigues, said.[4]. They are all breaking news and one by one that turned out to be false and the little paragraphs backgrounds are no longer applicable. We now know that Jerich and Cecil were not brothers, that Jericho did not kill the cubs, that Jericho and Cecil were a coalition, that cecil's cubs survived, etc, etc. Rodrigues is unreliable as he fits precisely within our WP:RSBREAKING requirement that he be treated as a primary and removed when better sources become available. If we didn't do that, our article would be about a Spaniard that killed the rival brother of Jericho that led Jericho to kill 12 of Cecil's cubs just before being poached himself. It is not a BLP violation to remove incorrect information when better sources come around nor is it a BLP violation to call them better sources. --DHeyward (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note: this is also being discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, on the grounds that User:Samsara had requested stopping any discussion about the reliability of the source because the source is living (this is a slightly separate issue from the inclusion of unsourced statements in the article itself, of course). LjL (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that last sentence is pretty bad. If a source is allegedly inaccurate, we leave it out of the article, we don't use the article to attack the source with uncited claims. Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. Alternatively, though, if there are sourced quotations of the primary sources which, when put together, clearly show that the primary source contradicted itself, I suppose it may be acceptable to include them all (but not only a selection crafted so that there is no contradiction presented); then the reader can draw any obvious conclusions. Although we do have some article templates for articles with internal contradictions... LjL (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should be left out. I've removed it and discussed its removal many times. Samsara keeps re-adding it as if the source is reliable for anything regarding Cecil. He's not. He's even issued apologies for being wrong. The reliable sources refute what he's had to say. Rather than leave a false statement, it should be removed. The same unreliable source has said Cecil's cubs would be killed by the rival lion Jericho. That was not true and refuted by Oxford. The same source said Jericho had been killed. Again, Oxford refuted it. That source said Jericho was Cecil's brother and was refuted again. There's no reason to mention him or attribute anything to him because it then requires refutation and most of it is aseless and unrelated. It's important to review our reliable sources policy and treat breaking news as primary sources. When we wait until reliable secondary sources are out, we find there is no truth the stories that Cecil's cubs were killed by Jericho or that Jericho was poached or that Jericho was Cecil's brother or that Jericho is a rival lion. None of those statements were correct and Rodrigues notes it's hard for him to get accurate information because he is hundreds of miles from the park. Quoting him only means we have to refute what he said. --DHeyward (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion for you is to find an exact reference for each of Rodrigues' statements you just mentioned (although I do not agree that failing to do so while discussing reliabilty of him as a source on a talk page or noticeboard is in any way a WP:BLP violation), and for each of the refutations (either from third parties or from Rodrigues himself, showing he's contradicting himself), and then this debate should be put to rest. We don't need to list all the statements and refutations in the article, especially if Rodrigues himself retracted, but it will set the record straight for Wikipedians as well as stop any (real or bogus) accusations against you of breaching WP:BLP. LjL (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this is the best approach. Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Time[5] on 26 July “Cecil’s death is a tragedy, not only because he was a symbol of Zimbabwe but because now we have to give up for dead his six cubs, as a new male won’t allow them to live so as to encourage Cecil’s three females to mate,” Johnny Rodrigues, head of the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force, said. “The two people who accompanied the hunter have been arrested but we haven’t yet tracked down the hunter, who is Spanish.” (I don't think I need to provide the source that says it wasn't a Spaniard. DailyMail, 1 August, (tons of other outlets including CNN that are in the talk archives)[6] Johnny Rodrigues, Chairman for Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force, said in a statement: 'It is with great sadness and regret that we report that Jericho was shot dead at 4pm this afternoon. and ABCNews, 2 August, quoting Rodrigues stating Jericho is Cecil's brother [7] "It is with huge disgust and sadness that we have just been informed that Jericho, Cecil's brother has been killed at 4pm today," the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force (Johnny Rodriques) said in a Facebook post. "We are absolutely heart broken." as well as the statement that After Cecil's death, Jericho became the protector of his cubs, according to Rodrigues. which contradicts the earlier statement from 29 July [8]"The saddest part of all is that now that Cecil is dead, the next lion in the hierarchy, Jericho, will most likely kill all Cecil's cubs so that he can insert his own bloodline into the females," Johnny Rodrigues, chairman of the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force, told the BBC. ABCNews called out some of the conflicting statements Oxford University Department of Zoology/WildCRU, whose study lion was Cecil, also said that Jericho is alive and well. The department also mentioned that both Jericho and Cecil are not brothers, and that unrelated male lions form coalitions to defend their territories. Earlier, the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force, which is not an official government agency, told ABC News Jericho was shot and killed Saturday at Hwange National Park. - We can't decide which statements are reliable. These are not BLP violations but quotes in reliable sources. ABC quite openly distanced themselves from the source on 2 August with their explanation of their source for Jericho's killing and bloodline. These are breaking news items, though, as are virtually all of Rodriques statements. Per WP:RSBREAKING we simply treat them as primary sources and remove them as more reliable sources becomes available. The amount of conflicting information is obvious. It portrays Mr. Rodriques in an extremely unfavorable light if we treat his statements as reliable material for the encyclopedia and publish the conflicting accounts in his voice. Even though his contradictory statements are well sourced, the contradictions are tangential to the article and corrected by more reliable sources as time goes on (such as Oxford correcting that Cecil's cubs were fine, Jericho was not a rival lion but coalition partners, that Jericho was not Cecil's brother and that Jericho was alive and caring for Cecil's cubs. As I've said before, they should just be removed including remnants that appear as "background" like legacy of offspring that have no bearing on the article (e.g. "Jericho, will most likely kill all Cecil's cubs so that he can insert his own bloodline into the females" is the basis for the section on the fate of the pride even though we now know that Jericho did no such thing and he wasn't a rival lion moving into a new territory). We can't just pick and choose the statements "we like" in evaluating a source. --DHeyward (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Much of what you just wrote is also not true or at the very least misleading (see e.g. [9] where that source's comments are backed up by the WildCRU lead researcher). As far as unreliable sources go, I'd say you are one of them. Samsara 18:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this commenting on the content instead of the editor? Since when was DHeyward a "source" at all? Stay focused please. LjL (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Update: the Killing of Cecil the lion article has now been protected such that only administrators are allowed to edit it. It may be relevant to mention that User:Samsara is an administrator. been semi-protected. LjL (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what you see as the relevance, so that you don't have to worry about others perceiving a nasty insinuation in your statement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The heading of this section is Killing of Cecil the lion. The article now protected is Killing of Cecil the lion. LjL (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you pretending to misunderstand? Why is it "relevant" that Samsara is an admin? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Because they're now the only party involved in the talk page discussion with the ability to edit the article. Sorry, I thought that was pretty obvious. LjL (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Administrators involved in editing disputes are not allowed to edit articles which are protected. This is basic policy. Samsara has no advantage here, so this insinuation is inappropriate unless Samsara violates this policy. Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Not being an administrator, I'm not necessarily expected to be familiar with the policies they have to follow. LjL (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Richard Downie

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

This article was discussed here before [10] and cleaned up, but now an IP is once again adding attack material. Note that some of the info that reflects negatively on Downie can be and is reliably sourced, but the stuff about hand gestures and slurs comes from an article that doesn't connect those allegations to him, and doesn't even mention his name. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Miami Herald is reliable , but The Miami Herald doesn't say what the IP says, therefore, that addition is definetly a BLP violation. Ip's been warned already, I think a block is in order due to the serious allegations being added in! KoshVorlon 17:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The source he appears to be using is this Daily Beast article, which, while a WP:RS, has the nasty little BLP problem of not evening mentioning Downie, making it utterly inappropriate for lead material on the Downie article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In the | diff we're given material showing Richard Downie calling people "buttboy" and "faggot" is being sourced to the Miami Herald, I don't see the Daily Beast mentioned at all in that diff, but I agree diff actually shows the allegations being mentioned, but it doesn't name the individual, so it still can't be used. KoshVorlon 19:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

To be technically correct, we're told in that diff that staff, not Downie, used those words. But yes, I'm just trying to show where the editor is procuring text from; I am not defending the edit at all. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Editor just left this message on his talk page which I suppose is intended for this discussion:

76.114.152.44 (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)-Nat Gertler and Fyddlestix keep on purposefully making accusations that are not true. Both the McClatchy series and Center for Public Integrity articles focus on the time Downie was headed the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies. The McClatchy articles specifically reference Downie's specious arguments defending a former member of a Chilean terrorist organization. The Center for Public Integrity article has a sidebar that brings into focus Downie's poor "leadership" at CHDS. None of these three articles were contained in the Downie (public relations) profile until introduced by me, then these two unethical characters have going on the warpath trying to "spin" them into something that they can justify the image of Downie they seek to promote. In addition, please note that the full reading of the FOIA article cited in the Center for Public Integrity expose shows that CHDS employees lived in fear of bringing up any complaints to or about Downie. The direct citation of what the FOIA document said has been repeated removed by one/both of these public relations beagles.

I'm not involved in public relations, but I suppose I've been wearing my Snoopy hat enough recently that I understand why people might confuse me for a beagle. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Adrian Zandberg

Adrian Zandberg

My concern is censorship in relation to this article in Polish language Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.84.172 (talk) 15:29, November 12, 2015

Jim McMahon (politician)

At the article Jim McMahon (politician), a British politician, User:Mabelina has added that McMahon has "spent money like water" as Leader of Oldham Council, apparently using as a source a comment on a news article. I do not want an edit war (I've already reverted once and was immediately reverted) so could others assist? AusLondonder (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

They have already been reported to the edit-warring noticeboard but it was archived with no response. AusLondonder (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

There has been much discussion about this mostly with accusations towards me of UKIP bias - which are totally and utterly unfounded - and the more than a slight hint of irritation when I have asked the correspondents whether support Labour (given their track record on Wiki). More disturbingly by asking such an "impertinent" question (in their view & despite their accusations of UKIP bias on my part) it somehow led to an almost immediate influx of criticism from fellow Wikipedians which I didn't know how to deal with. I was drawn into justifying myself on Talk pages, without any realistic chance of being understood as it transpired, and in the meantime all sorts of reversions were going on which I tried to remedy - an uphill battle. It would be a great relief to know whether I am wrong in my behaviour or whether such ganging up is from the above and Frinton. I take no joy in this type of escapade, and much prefer adding facts to Wiki. I don't know what else to say. M Mabelina (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you ACTUALLY need to be told that it's inappropriate to use a READER COMMENT BELOW A NEWS ARTICLE as a source here? Really??? Just so we're in no doubt: yes you were wrong in your behaviour. Do that again and we're off to ANI to discuss a topic ban from BLPs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I am an American so support no British political party. I do, however, support our BLP policy. I read the news article that is a reference for the "spends money like water" claim. I read the article once, and then twice, and found nothing like that. Then I read the reader comments, and that's where the quote appears. It is astounding that any editor would try to insert a random comment by a single random anonymous newspaper reader into any Wikipedia article, let alone a biography of a living person. Such comment sections are far too often cesspools of invective, ignorance and extremism. Not a single word from any newspaper comment section belongs in this encyclopedia. I will remove it with my next edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I planned to remove that crap, but unsurprisingly, Nomoskedasticity beat me to it. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Unbelievable -- Mabelina reverted the removal... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Now at ANI, as promised. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Dispute at Template talk:Criticism of religion sidebar#Non-religion critics entries

Should we recognize only those as critics of religion/religious who are described as such by reliable sources? I think so, please join discussion here :- Template talk:Criticism of religion sidebar#Non-religion critics entries D4iNa4 (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Jim Bacchi

Opinions needed. I've created a draft of an article in my sandbox for Jim Bacchi. Does it meet the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO? I'd like to know what others think before I publish it. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Gary Wetzel

Gary Wetzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure if I'm using the right forum.

On the biography of Gary Wetzel, Medal of Honor recipient from Viet Nam Conflict, the photo caption is apparently wrong. The black and white photo shows the recipients in uniform, and names them, including the person receiving the award from President Johnson. The captain says:

"Sammy L. Davis receiving the Medal of Honor from President Lyndon B. Johnson on November 19, 1968 along with four fellow recipients: Gary Wetzel, Dwight H. Johnson, James Allen Taylor, and Angelo Liteky."

But if you look at the name tags on their uniform, you see in order: Wetzel, Johnson, Davis, and Taylor. Which would leave Liteky getting the award from the President. Either they exchanged name tags with each other for the ceremony, or the caption is not accurate.

Just something I noticed.

Kevin Wilkinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.213.24.54 (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think that the picture was uploaded with the idea of using it in Davis's article. I don't think that the description is meant to signify that Davis was the person standing in front of the President, but I can easily see where it'd be taken as such. I would endorse a different caption in the article and a slightly altered caption on WC. I've done the image on the page, but I don't know exactly how to change this on WC since the rules there are slightly different. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, it's specified on WC, so no need to change anything else. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Larry Page and Sergey Brin

Assistance requested. A new user is edit warring to include his conclusions and opinions with total disregard of synth, which was explained. Note their talk page rationale: "The reason why this is relevant to Brin and Page specifically is that their holdings are inflated by billions of dollars by this exact practice, and aggressive tax avoidnace has become a core part of Google's business..."

Another bit of OR is the editor's opinion about the unofficial Google motto "Don't be evil". They added this to the lead: "This view was undermined by revelations that Brin had increased his wealth through Google's use of shell companies..."

Their edits all focused to a single purpose.

Diffs:
Edit warring on Page;
Edit warring on Brin.
--Light show (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Also at Eric Schmidt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I agree that discussing the corporate tax structure of Google is undue weight and original synthesis at the biographies of these individuals, unless reliable secondary sources are provided that explicitly ascribe the tax practices to these individuals. alanyst 20:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Aziz Sancar interview translation - talk

Biased interpretation of a particular interview of the Nobel Laurate Aziz Sancar in Turkish language used in his biography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aziz_Sancar#Controversies_section . Its' flowing with opinions but not with clear definitions. Until a full; reliable English translation of the said interview is provided to be discussed upon; talk is bordering "libel" and "slander". WP:BLPSOURCES and importantly; whole interview was skimmed down to one single biased comment.Mulkhan (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The definitions are quite clear. There's at least five users ([11][12][13][14][15]) who agree with its current format, including those that happened to disagree from the beginning. If you'd like to discuss about who or what he was referring to, that can easily be managed. But that little tidbit of information is by no means biased especially considering that each and every word and its subsequent definitions was verified by numerous sources by native speakers such as myself and others. Please refer to the sources presented at the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It used to say "English People" before my objection and now it says "the West" and on the talk page you claimed "... used against non-Muslim Western society. More importantly, this is the definition adopted by Wikitionary and Wikipedia itself." whereas neither wikipedia nor wiktionary says anything about "Western Society" You're adding definitions off of your head and claim those are "reliable". How can anyone rely on your interpretations if you keep adding personal ideas to descriptions? Thats why it's a dispute about "Sources". Definitely biased and no; biased definitions certainly can be pressed and supported by anyone. Before implying you're a native speaker; at least try to quote definitions without changing them. Mulkhan (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you really feel about that being an issue, you shouldn't advocate deleting an entire paragraph of perfectly sourced material. Instead, you can propose removing the word West or English. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It is you who saw it as an issue and changed it on your own. So the person in question addressed "English People" or "the West" ? Is this what you call "Perfectly Sourced Material" ? This is a living person's biography, not an high school essay. That's why the "sentence" (not paragraph as you're trying to exaggerate) is poorly sourced and should be looked into by neutral people Mulkhan (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed an unfortunate framing of the use of the word "gavur" to imply the worst possible framing. We must respect the spirit of biographies of living persons guidelines. It should not say "infidels" when it could have meant "foreigners". SageRad (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

SageRad He said "Allah'in gavuru" meaning God's (or Allah's) infidels or infidels of God specifically. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No; there's no source upon your preference of the meaning "infidel" when used with "Allah's" remark. "Allah's or God's" does not imply it's used in religious context. Please provide a non-personal souce. It's not what he meant. Mulkhan (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

However, the Wikipedia article on Giaour does seem to hold that it is a slur that is closely translated as "infidel" or at least is an offensive term. This is a difficult question. SageRad (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I proposed a word by word translation of the relevant paragraph of the interview in the talk; leaving Giaour as it is; in the context so people can see what he meant by looking up the word in wikipedia; without adding pointing to "infidel" specifically. Even the translation of to whom or what the term Giaur is debated; "English people", "the West" or "Western Society" are definitely not interchangeable. Instead of trying to skim it down to a debateable "one liner"; proffering the translation in it's entirety leaves no question of "misinterpretations".Mulkhan (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Debated by whom? It's not really debated. Five users have already agreed to its current definition of 'infidel', let alone entire articles (i.e. Gavur) and Wiktionary pages (i.e. Gavur). The sources provided by Yerevantsi on the TP are as strong as it can get, including the Turkish Linguistic Society. All of the sources that have been presented up till now have the same definition. Let us focus on what sources say and not rely on personal observations. For the sake of your argument, that would mean to present sources reflecting your view, and not just commentary about what you think this or that word means. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Infidel" is one of the translations which does not need any debate; but you're yet to explan where does it say "Allah's Giaur" means specifically "Allah's infidel"; because it does not appear in TDK, the source you just gave; Turkish Linguistic Society in phrases made by the word Giaur. It's clear you're trying to avoid a word by word; direct translation where leaving Giaur as it is; because it doesn't fit a particular agenda. There's even debate in that sentence's object; is it "the West; English People or Western Society" which shows a poor (or misleading) understanding of the interview (or English language). I don't think you're neutral and unbiased so that's why the subject is here. A living person's biography can't contain poorly constructed and biased opinions; especially made by biased point of view. Mulkhan (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Until we have reliable sourcing about this as being a controversy, I thin is better left out of the article. It's a BLP and this feels like negative synthesis to me. I've read the talk page discussion as well and the English source. Need source to establish that it's true and significant, otherwise this is an editor's original research. SageRad (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Since it's an original research not sourced as a "controversy" by any reliable (or ANY) source; (which is admitted by the editor Étienne Dolet in the talk page : (Indeed, finding a source that calls it a controversy is important) I'll be removing it on the grounds of "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.", in addition to violation of the WP:NOR and should be immediate per : WP:BLPREMOVE and suggest complete removal of the debate in the talk page and protection of the section by an admin in case any vandalism may occur. " Mulkhan (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't to say the debate over his ethnicity shouldn't been included. After all, it's among the first thing reporters ask about him. His reaction to it should also be noteworthy to that effect. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

*Nope; the arguements in the "controversies section" in the talk page was made without referencing a single reliable source. Since the interview was not perceived as being "controversial" in any reliable source; pushing it with arguements sourced with original research is just arguing for the sake of arguing. And since there's nothing controversial about the interview; adding it to the article is pointless. And WP:NOTABLENEWS is not a valid counter arguement since the interview was there for some time and assuming it'll gain "controversial" status should have no place in a BLP. If it becomes controversial in the future; it might be discussed again for inclusion; after assesing the compliance of WP:BLPSOURCES. Mulkhan (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No one is advocating the use of the word 'controversial'. However, it can be added per WP:NOTABLENEWS since the interview, along with the quote, has received wide coverage. A simple google search of the quote alone yields 600+ results. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Paolo Macchiarini

An editor at the help desk brought up concerns about this BLP. Apparently the individual is the subject of some public controversy. My cursory look at the page suggests the possibility of both attempts to attack the subject and attempts to whitewash the article. If editors here with experience dealing with this type of situation could have a look, I think that would be very helpful. Deli nk (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Janov

Arthur Janov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joefromrandb believes that a link to Sexual orientation change efforts at the Arthur Janov article is a BLP violation. The user has removed the link repeatedly, most recently here, in which he gives BLP as a reason. Joefromrandb has so far refused to discuss the issue on the talk page, despite repeated invitations by me to do so. In my judgment, the link does not violate BLP in any way, and Joefromrandb is simply invoking the policy as an excuse for removing a link that he disapproves of for some reason. Arthur Janov is discussed at the article Sexual orientation change efforts, so the link is clearly relevant and appropriate in my view. I see comment from other users, whatever their view. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think that's how Wikipedia works, you probably shouldn't be editing articles on living people. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

What? Pardon me? You are the user who apparently thinks that you can revert other users over and over again without making any real attempt to justify your edits, and if you think that, maybe you are the one who should not be editing, Joefromrandb. The bottom line is that if you think the link is a BLP violation, then you need to give a reason for your view and persuade other users you are correct. If you cannot do that, the link stays. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I rest my case, folks. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you don't. Not in a collaborative environment. You can't make smug comments in edit summaries and use that as an excuse to avoid further discussion, Joefromrandb. Endlessly removing something on the grounds that it is a BLP violation when you have no agreement that it is a BLP violation is unacceptable and quite likely to get you blocked. As you are also edit warring at Sexual orientation change efforts, and again spuriously using BLP as an excuse to do so, you need to explain your behavior there as well. I am quite prepared to believe that the material has problems, but surely it can be rewritten to be more acceptable? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator, I had a quick look, and could not find any information on Sexual orientation change efforts in the body of the Arthur Janov article. I don't think we should link without providing some reason. I am inclined to think that, without information, and sources, supporting the link, it could reasonably be considered to be covered by BLP. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

sunitha laxma reddy v

sunitha laxma reddy v is an error page. the content is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansighreddy (talk • contribs) 02:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean Sunitha Laxma Reddy V. Can you be more specific about the problems with the article? —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The only reference [16] deadlinks; Site hostname does not appear to resolve. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)