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

Adnan Oktar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The second sentence of this article is: "In 2007, he came to international attention when he sent out thousands of unsolicited copies of the Atlas of Creation[2] advocating Islamic creationism to schools, colleges and science museums in several European countries and the USA." I took out the word "unsolicited", which I expected to be a noncontroversial edit. For one thing the verb "sent out" already implies that he initiated the action. For another the info on his action being unsolicited (and the word) is already in the body of the article, it doesn't seem to need to be in the intro as well. For a third, it seems to give a somewhat negative feel to the sentence. My edit was quickly reversed with the note that we shouldn't change the words of the sources. I raised another issue on the talk page about the first sentence which described him as an "Islamic creationist." The article itself makes it clear that he has a number of related interests (most of them unpopular in the West which is perhaps part of the problem). Anyway creationism is only one aspect. When I mentioned this on the talk page I was told by another editor that this is what English language sources say about him so (if I understand correctly) that should be what WP says about him too. I don't much like Mr. Oktar, and indeed he might be a very dangerous individual, but still I think WP would be better with an article with a more fair-minded tone. BigJim707 ( talk) 22:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the use of the word "unsolicited". I don't agree that "sent out" implies that it was unsolicited. I can send something in response to a request, for example, in which case it was solicited. I also don't see a problem repeating the word in the lead. I'm actually more troubled by the use of the phrase "he came to international attention" preceding the sending out. I haven't read the article, so I don't know if that's really a fair characterization, but usually those kinds of phrases mean editorializing by WP editors. As for the use of the phrase "Islamic creationist", that bothers me, too, as it sounds like we are saying that's all he is, and even a glance at the article indicates that he is more than that. I don't have the time to really dig into this right now (maybe someone else will), but I'll try to look at it later.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to tweek the article a little but got rebuffed by a couple of the regular editors there. I feel like I'm too much a lightweight here to get into a struggle with them. BTW in this case international attention seems to mean the attention of people with a special interest in the creation/evolution controversy. Not that they are bad people but kind of a small group, although it's true that they are found internationally. Most of the rest of us didn't notice. BigJim707 ( talk) 01:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that the mass & "unsolicited" nature of this distribution is a large part of what brought it media notice (and thus, Adnan Oktar notability), I think its retention is a reasonable emphasis. This topic is always likely to have a fairly high level of difficulty given (i) fairly narrowly-themed coverage in European sources & (ii) fairly heavy censorship (of critical views towards it) surrounding it in Turkey itself (is Richard Dawkins' website still blacklisted in Turkey for its coverage of this topic?). Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 06:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

'cept that a huge number of organisations send out 'unsolicited' material to schools, other organisations, and households. Daily we get 'unsolicited' stuff, save the children, guide dogs for the blind, veterans associations. Around xmas we get sent packs of cards from various charities asking us to give generously to the cause. The other week we got a plastic bag thing to put in the bog to reduce water usage per flush. All of it 'unsolicited'. The issue here is content of what was sent NOT the 'unsolicited' which is being used a pejorative. John lilburne ( talk) 06:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with "unsolicited" ether. It's factual. It's supported by the RS. And it provides important detail to the article. Readers should know that he sent out thousands of copies to people who didn't ask for them, instead of sending out thousands of copies to people who signed up for his mailing list. As for it giving the sentence a "negative feel", there may be some truth to that, but it's the facts of his actions which some people might find somewhat "negative", not the actual word. And we shouldn't cover up facts simply because some people might judge those facts as being somewhat negative. The questions are if it's notable and from a NPOV. I'd say so. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 22:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If that is NPOV then the packs that were sent out as part of the darwin200 celebrations were unsolicited too. Of course no one in their right mind would describe them as such as we all approve of the message. John lilburne ( talk) 00:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Some of the tone for the article seems to come from this New York Times story. The author seems to feel that the books are somehow a threat to science. I think that attitude is more scary than creationism itself. Besides that, Mr Oktar's actions, like all human behavior, are the result of evolution -- so what is there to complain about? BigJim707 ( talk) 19:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, it is not important what is scary or not. The fact is, that this source uses the term 'unsolicited'. As do Der Spiegel, Science, Slate.com, The Economist and The Guardian. These newspapers and magazines all can be regarded as WP:RS. Thus, my guess is that the word 'unsolicited' is in place in the article. Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't do any harm, really. It just seems a little gonzo. BigJim707 ( talk) 23:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian article is pure gonzo journalism, the NYT a bit less so, the Economist is more normal. BigJim707 ( talk) 23:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of other phrases, other than 'unsolicited', that are similar in all those reports. Its as if they are all working from the same press report. John lilburne ( talk) 07:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This sometimes happens. I've seen other times when "buzz words" from one news report are repeated in others. Probably especially if the story starts in the New York Times since it is so influential. BigJim707 ( talk) 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. The article in Science was first then the Guardian then the Times. BigJim707 ( talk) 15:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The use of similar phrases is what you might expect if those articles all are about the same person. But if you want to challenge the sources, please explain if they do not fulfil the WP:BLPSOURCES-standards. Jeff5102 ( talk) 10:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note that my, fairly minor, edit did not remove the word from the article itself, just from the intro to try to get a more neutral feel. I don't think I took any information out of the article at all. Nor did I intend to challenge any of the sources, or for that matter the accuracy of the article -- which seems quite factual, and well sourced. BigJim707 ( talk) 14:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Steve Lerner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article creator admitted writing his autobiography back in 2006, which largely accounts for the tone and quality of the article as it stands today.

I became aware of the article when welcoming a new user who within 1 minute after account creation as his very first edit removed maintenance templates from the article marking the edit as minor. Said user, with no article edits beside Steve Lerner, has in less than 1 month performed a total of 5 "cleanings" of maintenance templates from the the article, added unsourced contents, issued multiple no-edit orders, made several PAs, and tossed generalized accusations around, talk page section q.v. Pay special attention to the his claims of notability of the article subject without adding RS and his unorthodox notability criteria "Notable people are notable not just because of googling something- they are notable because of acheivements, which are not measured by Wikipedia editing standards, but by real world existence." (My emphasis.)

A look at editing and contribution patterns suggest at least a COI, another talk page section q.v.

I have done a minimum of work on the article today, e.g. converted external links to incites. Could a pair of fresh eyes cast a glance on the article and give opinion on notability and maybe do some pruning of excessive prose and unsourced contents? Thank you — MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 22:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've pared down the article significantly, but it still needs even more work, and I'm not sure whether Lerner is even sufficiently notable to warrant an article. I don't have much more time right now, but I'll try to look at it again later. In the meantime, I am watching the article.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 Redflag Thank you Bbb23 and Threeafterthree for your efforts, but EditorCool777 ( talk · contribs) is back. He has left some nonconstructive comments on the talk page, and has reverted the article to where it was more or less a week ago. Including removal of maintenance templates for the 6th time. Will somebody perform a rollback, please? Thanks. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 17:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sent to AfD (after reversion of the tags deletion). Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 18:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Lerner ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Penelope Trunk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been some informal discussion about deletion of this article as being nothing more than a vanity page for a blogger of questionable notability. I would like to formally nominate this page for deletion, but am not sure of the exact procedure and would like to request assistance from an admin or more experienced editor (read: someone who knows how to do this getting the ball rolling). Thanks in advance. -- Entrybreak ( talk) 23:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I can help you/create it for you - what is your reason for nomination? Off2riorob ( talk) 23:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

She's published a book as well. [1] Gamaliel ( talk) 23:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, looking around she seems to have a small degree of notability and is getting hwe name in the press so to speak - here are some articles she is mentioned in http://www.penelopetrunk.com/press.html - and this article already in our article is all about her http://host.madison.com/news/local/article_b4bd14a8-af0f-11de-8a1a-001cc4c002e0.html - perhaps the article just needs a little improvement. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally? Non-notability. More specifics are that 4 of the 7 references in the article are to the subject's own blog. And her book sales at Amazon barely rank in the top 700,000. It seems the only time she got an real national media attention was when she Tweeted about her miscarriage as it was happening. I was looking at her blog earlier, and these days seems to be more about the problems in her personal life than about career advice.

-- Entrybreak ( talk) 00:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• - Fails WP:Author - Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) is a failed proposal. Level of coverage in independent reliable citations fails to clear the minimal requirement of WP:GNG. Single noteworthy reportable issue that received a decent independent level of reporting was the tweeting of her miscarriage creating WP:BLP1E issues. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if we leave it a couple of days someone may edit to assert notability/improve the bio - I saw she won an award in one citation. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess the question I'd raise about the award was how notable was it?

-- Entrybreak ( talk) 00:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not very, it was here, - "After Penelope Trunk won an award for writing about sex online, her blushing employer asked her to start using a pseudonym." Off2riorob ( talk) 00:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So, is the consensus here to nominate for deletion, and open it up to discussion? Off2riorob could you put it up, if you agree? Thanks, again, for your help.

-- Entrybreak ( talk) 02:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have sent it to Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penelope Trunk (2nd nomination). –  ukexpat ( talk) 14:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a query regarding The Song of the Music Makers. I learnt this song during my time at Junior School in England and would have been about 10 yrs of age at that time in 1950. I remember the song clearly even the words of the first verse, possibly only in unison so am wondering where Eleanor Daley would have sourced these words initially. I still sing solo (mezzo) and am always interested in songs I now sing or have sung in the past which come to mind now and then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.1.55 ( talk) 08:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're in the wrong place; try the Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 17:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ergun Caner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dseppling ( talk · contribs)

MosesModel ( talk · contribs)

Saw this when I looked over recent changes a dueling edit war at BLP. Not sure what to make of the sourcing or the allegations. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 18:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

DSEppling who identifies himself as "the Executive Vice President of Ergun Caner Ministries" has been making massive deletions to the Ergun Caner wiki. The additions I made in response to this come from a number of sources. 1. I cited his brother's book about their conversion. 2. I cited the book Ergun Caner co-authored with Emir Caner, Unveiling Islam. 3. I cited two unedited videos of speeches Ergun Caner gave to the USMC in North Carolina. 4. I cited two articles written by David McGee about events that Caner spoke at in Bristol, VA. 5. I cited once, the blog of the man who acquired the videos by the Freedom of Information Act. I attempted to appease DSEppling by adding the only content that I could find that he wanted added. Everything else was massive deletions. I asked repeatedly why the Caner brothers were not legitimate sources for Ergun Caner's wikipedia page. I am sorry for the 3 revision rule. I did not know about it and I will not break it again. Please do not block me. MosesModel ( talk) 14:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Also if I may, I would like to make a polite case for the inclusion of the two viddler videos. One, they are unedited. I would never cite an edited video in this Wikipedia entry. Two, I only typed what Ergun Caner said. I made no judgement statement to whether or not it was true. However it is definitely true that he said it. In one video, he is introduced as Ergun Caner and in both videos he self-identifies as Ergun Caner. His speeches to the troops should be part of the Wikipedia page and it is not libel. MosesModel ( talk) 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesse Csincsak (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article has been greatly expanded today, by an account claiming to be Mr. Csincsak. The additions are non-neutral, poorly sourced, and contain content that's probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia, including a hint that their program idea was lifted by another producer. The user has already been warned re: inappropriate external links and COI, but has ignored the warnings and continued to work on the article w/o discussion. I'm guessing the mass will be reverted, but would like some other editors to have a look re: content and whether stronger actions are needed. 99.0.82.226 ( talk) 21:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is written like drivel. The Csincsak account has been warned. I've nominated it for deletion as a non-notable athlete, although you contributed to the deletion discussion saying that his notability is as a TV reality star. Maybe other editors who are more familiar than I am with TV reality shows and the threshold of notability required to justify an article here will comment.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that he doesn't seem notable as an athlete, and the article is of negligible quality. I don't follow reality TV, so I've never heard of him, but his personal life has been covered by major newspapers and Us Magazine. 99.0.82.226 ( talk) 00:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw the People and the Us magazine cites. What major newspapers?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Following the 'news' link on the AFD page: [2], NY Daily News and Washington Post. The people/gossip sections for sure, but it counts.... 99.0.82.226 ( talk) 01:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Csincsak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jacob Arabo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi all, could a couple of editors put this page on their watch and maybe check the ips in these diffs: [12], [13].

Basically, while modifying and checking a ref, I discovered this info which is of major notability and includes THE NY lawyer in vogue at the moment, a certain Ben Brafman, so I added this paragraph which is obviously irritating the subject or their associates, and has been deleted twice so far. Being off-wiki recently, I missed the second delete, so a few more eyes would be appreciated. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done a little rewording of the conviction information. I've also removed the Jewish references as they are not well-sourced. I agree with you that the conviction information belongs in the article. Why is there such a long list of songs in which he's named? Can't we just say he's named in a lot of them and include just a few? Seems like a ridiculous section to me. It's not like he wrote the songs. Anyway, I will watch the article.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff, hadn't really noticed the cats, someone came by and removed the whole song section so that's all good. Yes, keep watching please, I'm sure someone will come and do a "drive-by" edit to delete that info again. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some editors have continued to add gossip to Bachmann pages. It was reported by anonymous sources that Bachmann suffered from severe "incapacitating" headaches, for which she requires heavy medication and has been hospitalized on multiple occasions. Unfortunately no person is willing to lay claim to this statement.

Per WP:BLPGOSSIP one should be wary when using anonymous sources. Additionally from WP:BLP Contentious material about living persons 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.[2] Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

That she has migraines is fine for inclusion, but the result of those is purely conjecture and POV. The medicine she takes for treatment is protected by medical privacy laws and patient/provider confidentiality rules. Conjecture about the medication is a very POV and not suitable for a BLP, especially when it is made by an anonymous person. Arzel ( talk) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

More broadly, there's also a question over whether a journalist who maintains the confidentiality of his sources is engaged in gossip. Are all news stories that use anonymous sources merely gossip? Recall that significant reporting on the Watergate scandal involved a famously anonymous source, Deep Throat. Was that reporting just gossip?   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision of history is always a touchy issue. The better question would be at the time of the initial watergate report would this be something that would have been covered here? Obviously the end result is that the anonymous reports were verified by other sources, but the initial accusation of a crime would most certainly not have passed BLP issues. Arzel ( talk) 04:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a correct interpretation of WP:V or WP:BLP. The Washington Post is a highly reliable media source. If we adopted the view that no news reporting which includes unnamed sources may be used as sources for issues relating to living people then it would have a serious impact on writing. Ironically, it could even lead to a preference for lower quality sources who are not so scrupulous about indicating that they are using unnamed sources in favor of sources which simply make the assertions without identifying the source in any way.   Will Beback  talk  05:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems like strange logic. Your example would fail WP:V. I don't see how requiring named sources for contencious issues would ever result in a preference for lower quality sources. Accusations against someone should always be backed up and attributed to the accusor, with some obvious exceptions in which case the accusor is the victim of a crime or a minor. This appears to be little more than a vindictive accusation against Bachmann. It would also be undue weight to give their unverified accusation extra weight. It would be all but impossible to Bachmann, or anyone else for that matter, to defend themselves against such accusations without revealing private medical information. Patient medical information is highly sensitive information, and we should always err on the side of caution when accusations regarding personal health are leveled against a living person. Arzel ( talk) 14:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed normal for sources to remain anonymous to the "end-reader". The question is of how seriously the sources' story is taken, and by whom. I'd never heard of the "Daily Caller" before and don't know how credible is; my impression is that it's well below any newspaper whose website I'd normally bother to look at, though not below some "news" sources that are often cited in all seriousness in Wikipedia. This CBS story takes the story seriously (and refrains from poohpoohing the "Daily Caller") but it also speculates about who the sources might be and what motives they might have. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to me to be one of those "wait and see" situations. That is, leave it out of the article for now, without prejudice to including it at some later date should the story become more firm. Wikipedia doesn't need to "scoop" anyone on the story, if we don't include some random factoid like this as soon as it hits the wires, so what? If it becomes an important issue, we can wait until after it becomes an important issue to include it in the articles. Taking the time to get it right doesn't seem to be a bad idea. Just wait it out; either it will blow over and not be a big deal (in which case we shouldn't have ever had it in the article in the first place) or it will become a significant, long-lasting, and deep story in actual reliable sources, after which we can add it. Again: There is no impending need to rush every factoid into an article the second a single source publishes it. Take the time to get it right! -- Jayron 32 01:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of the kind of edit that flagged revisions would help screen. Cla68 ( talk) 02:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of a situation where flagged revisions would be nearly worthless if not an outright failure. The information is sourced and would likely be flagged as OK by someone quickly. I'd have a hard time (without a pattern being there) taking a bad faith stance on the hypothetical approver...but don't doubt for a second that someone would check off on the edit. Whether it is sourced well enough or where it fits as far as WP:UNDUE goes is a different story. -- Onorem ♠ Dil 02:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yuri Dojc (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you please check the deletions by users Dupontrocks and myself (Halibutron) of vandalism by a guy variously named KosherSlivovitz (current) and Spravodlivost2008 (2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Dojc

For a guy who is supposedly insulted and slandered by comments made in a private Yahoo forum chaired by Dojc, he sure seems to want the world to know about it, neatly avoiding mentioning that the private comments were made by *other *people*, and not Dojc at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halibutron ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

They're good deletions. The article was also bloated with advertising. I've deleted both the legal stuff and the advertising. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that I'd sorted out the problems, but it's clear that one editor has a dim view of the subject of the article and is keen for the article to reflect this. More eyeballs, please. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the article: Dupontrocks had created it by lifting the text from this page. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

John Varty (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - the vesion on July 16 prior to the redirect

After the protection period expired, the John Varty page was redirected to Running Wild, a movie he made with Brooke Shields. All info about his documentaries on the Discovery Channel and The National Geographic Channel and they awards they've won, is gone. He plays a major role in tiger conservation. Tigeralert ( talk) 07:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision history shows there was a recent content dispute and problems with a lack of reliable sources WP:RS that discuss/report on the subject. Off2riorob ( talk) 12:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Vaibhav Kala (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possible re-creation, very promotional BLP with no footnotes.  Chzz   ►  14:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this is forum shopping, but some eyes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Chitty (3rd nomination) maybe. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my opinion the person's an unnotable private person and as she's "quite shy" and "very private" and has shunned the limelight maybe let's cut her a break. Herostratus ( talk) 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This was already a mess that settled down and sat quiet for years, but has recently (the last couple of days) gone to pot when the subject of the article showed up and started removing what he considered scandalous talk page posts.

Let's start from the beginning. The article was created at 08:51 UTC on May 4, 2006. On May 8, an account showed up at the article under the screenname User:HaroldCovington and started making...colourful edits (I won't link every single diff. but they are among the earliest edits) to the article. Later, after being continually reverted, he headed over to the talk page and make more interesting edits, including the very first item on the talk page that contains a five year old legal threat (which never was properly retracted, BTW). 26 hours later, he took off after exchanges with User:Dogville and didn't come back - at least noticeably - until July 18. At that point, he made this edit (this IP shows up again later) and many more in a talk page edit war. Here's another diff.; look at that edit summary, and look at a lot more of this war through the 20th (two days ago).

Suddenly out of nowhere (because the IP was blocked for 24 hours by User:Courcelles), User:NorthwestVolunteer happened to show up and three times made - well, that edit in this sentence. User:Your Buddy Fred Lewis also appeared around this time, and also took to reverting edits on the talk page (though it's such a mess by now I can only assume he's reverting Harold's edits because he seems to not agree with Harold's edits either). Suddenly another twist; User:Forky1138 has a go at removing content - the exact same content that User:NorthwestVolunteer removed. An SPI was completed; I referred to this under the talk page war zone via the "Okay, That's A LITTLE Better" section, where I linked to here. As of yet, Forky1138 has not been blocked.

BTW, in telling this story, I forgot to tell the tale of this showing up at AN/I which is where I first became involved. Not knowing a thing about the history of the article, I attempted to extend an olive branch to the IP editor before I started poking around and finding the displeasing history. Even then I attempted to remain friendly, and he did respond directly to me on a couple of occasions.

Finally, after everything that had happened, he decided to request page deletion via the ticketing system by sending an e-mail to the info-en-q queue. I clearly can't see this ticket, or if it's been handled, but on the IP talk page (which also includes his e-mail address, I'm not sure that's extremely wise of him) I had told him quite bluntly I'll be happy to set up an AfD with his brief rationale (which I asked for there, and which he later went into an essay after I explained why to keep it brief). I also, in a light way, didn't hide the fact that by now he was pissing me off. =)

As a final twist, another IP removed the same content (it actually happened twice, one right after the other). User:Will Beback reverted the second. This one got reverted by User:SlapChopVincent, who also reversed one last IP editor before Will put down a 24 hour lockdown.

The talk page has a lot of additional information he's posted regarding how he feels he's being stalked on here by two people who he's had off-wiki contact with in real life (one whom he's banned from his own blog) and further threats of legal action. Some of this also spilled onto the IP talk page linked above.

Now as for the article itself. There is a lot of unsourced content. I started looking through Books sources at Google and found something for the first unsourced remark, but have yet to add it because of the constant nature of the discussion and his constant belittling of editors at WP in general (still going legal on us, though understandably because of a link that never should have been referenced in the article) and because he later started requesting deletion of the page (which is where I stopped searching in my second reference search without a result posted). The article needs a LOT of cleaning up, but there is no doubt that the subject is notable and AfD would take us nowhere. Unless WMF honours his request, deletes the article, and locks down the area (they did this with Andrew Stewart Jamieson and I've considered asking Philippe more about Covington's situation but haven't yet), I fear we're going to have Covinghton continually coming back and continuing to remove content that he feels isn't accurate in order to look the best he possibly can, even from the talk page (where he shouldn't tamper with things, period).

I was drained from this yesterday and missed the protection edit, requesting it at WP:RfPP only to be told I missed it (oops). However, 24 hours is not enough. The article does have issues and could use a complete rewrite (lately YBFL has been making edits which I have not reviewed), but after the 24 hour stoppage in action expires, I guarantee you that IPs and newly registered accounts - whether Covington himself or defenders of him visiting from his blog - are going to be back attempting to remove content from the talk page again. I think we need a long lockdown on this, and optionally I am thinking of creating an archive page that could be given permanent semi-protection so that IPs can't touch it. I can truthfully say, however, that while anyone commenting is welcome, this will definitely need administrative assistance. As a final note, the IP contribution page for 24.113.172.237 suggests he is blocked; he actually is not, so please keep that in mind. CycloneGU ( talk) 22:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to add and will briefly note a comment I made to Will on his page as well. Covington made this statement among what is on the article's talk page, suggesting that as soon as protection expires, he's going to go right back into it and force us to babysit him again. That is why this needs attention; I don't know if he's just going to go away after the lockdown expires. CycloneGU ( talk) 23:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Note for those with OTRS access, the ticket number is Ticket:2011072110016071. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is, I included a Wikilink to it above in the area regarding it as well. =) CycloneGU ( talk) 23:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry CycloneGU, I missed it. -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, having the visual aid for quick reference is not a bad thing. =) CycloneGU ( talk) 23:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you archive the talkpage and start again? The article should be improved as much as possible by the interested experienced users that are there - raised up to GA status would be a good idea. - I would semi protect the BLP for a few months. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that archiving what is there (the talk page) and semi-protecting it (so that he can't simply edit it on a whim since archives should not be edited NEway) is the best idea. I have held off archiving for the time being. But it still doesn't change the fact that the article's subject wants to violate WP:COI and is making legal threats for which he should have been permanently banned five years ago. That is just as much a part of this scenario as the contents of the talk page. CycloneGU ( talk) 23:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think we should be really polite to anyone who wanders along and then after advice, warn and block. Keep a real tight ship on the article and on the talkpage, in the way of a fresh start I would also, if most of the article content is cited and not in anyway promotional - remove the COI template of shame. I would also consider removing the brothers claim of illness as that is upsetting him and he says its completely false - his brother it seems is an opinionated person against the subject and giving an interview to the Southern Poverty people who are a strongly opinionated source against the subject - is there another source for that personality disorder claim? Off2riorob ( talk) 23:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

By means of a brief update on my way to bed shortly, the archive is set up and was fully protected about an hour ago after I tidied up the erroneous topics of mere equal signs. So that part is done. I am hopeful by one of his last comments that he is satisfied and won't act up again, but I can't be sure; after all, he did try to revert some of those talk page posts after the message in question. He can't revert them now. In any case, while I don't think the user's conduct is discussed here, I think the article itself might still merit some discussion. CycloneGU ( talk) 06:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Eric Topol (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please review revision history of Eric Topol for violation of fair and balanced weight of achievements relating to Topol. Repeated revisions made by MastCell to negatively weight the topic of Vioxx. This not being the most prominent event in Topols career, yet MastCell continues to insert sentences throughout that implicate this. Topols page should present appropriate, relevant data with due respect to fair weight and context - and this is not currently the case. Nor does the page read as a resume and this should be removed immediately. It lists his achievements and his many contributions to medical society. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starriekittie ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any unbalanced editing by MastCell. What in particular do you object to? You could always start a discussion on the article Talk page. What's your interest in the article? It's the only one you've edited on Wikipedia. As for the resume tag, it's clearly warranted. The article needs more third-party reports on Topol's achievements, rather than just listing them.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the page. My concern was not with the content of including the Vioxx information, this should certainly be included. My concern was that it was repeatedly inserted in multiple sections and is not being considered neutrally. By reviewing his other accomplishments it should be obvious that being one of the top most cited researchers in America, or being the first to administer t-PA or even leading the Cleveland Clinic to the top heart hospital in America for so many years in a row would be considered the most prominent aspects of his career. I understand that in a lead paragraph there should be some discussion of each of the main points of the article, which is why the older versions of the lead paragraph do mention his public dispute with Merck and Cleveland Clinic - but it did not need an entire paragraph devoted to this (again undue weight). Also, when the page was ready for revisions in 2010 it was posted to the community for review before it was changed. The changes that I made today were minor from that version and I dont object to all that MastCell revised, certainly, just the continued harassment about the Vioxx case. I use other names for editing wikipedia pages, but I edit Topols with starriekittie for personal reasons. I feel very strongly for the work of genomics as it has done many things for my family and I feel that all those who work in this field should be represented fairly for the work they do. I am fairly new in the wiki community all things considered, although I have read through all the policies and examples and read many pages for ideas and constantly use wikipedia as a resource. I would welcome adjustments to make it less of a resume and more of a detail of contributions to society. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starriekittie ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should use provide links between the accounts. Links should ideally take the form of all three of the following:

1. Similarities in the username (for example, User:Example might have User:Example public or User:Example bot). ^[1]
2. links on both the main and alternative account user pages, either informally or using the userbox templates made for the purpose. To link an alternative account to a main account, use the main account to tag any secondary accounts with {{ User alternate acct | main account}} (using the main account shows it's genuine) or {{ Publicuser}} if the account is being used to maintain security on public computers. The main account may be marked with {{ User Alt Acct Master}}.
3. links in the alternative account signature: if not linking to both the alternative and main account, link to the alternative account, and if necessary provide a note there requesting contact be made via the main account, or simply redirect the user talk page.

Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or member of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts, as well as editors considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so. Note that email is generally not considered a secure way of communication. Concerned editors may wish to log into Wikipedia's secure server then email the arbitration committee or any individual with checkuser rights through a secure connection to Wikipedia's computers.

Editors who have abandoned an account in order to edit under a new identity are required to comply with the clean start policy. -- Orange Mike | Talk 00:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

( edit conflict) The first two sentences of the lead don't mention Vioxx. That is followed by two sentences (not an entire paragraph) about Vioxx. Then there is a separate paragraph about his current positions. I suppose you could reorder it, but I don't see two sentences as undue, and if you reordered it, Vioxx would then have its own paragraph, which might make it more prominent. Vioxx is only mentioned in its own section and in the lead, so I don't know what you mean by "inserted in multiple sections". I'd be careful about labeling MastCell's edits as "harassment".

I'm disturbed by your statement about your alternate accounts. Please read WP:SOCK#NOTIFY.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• First of all, I think Eric Topol is among the top physician-scientists in the U.S., and probably the world. I think the article should convey that. But we can convey that without turning the article into a c.v. or press release. Secondly, I think it's a bit silly to minimize Topol's role in the Vioxx episode (and, more broadly, his role as a prominent critic of the pharmaceutical industry); the New York Times notes that Topol "has cultivated the persona of a Naderesque crusader against drugs he deems dangerous, as well as their makers."

  These aren't mutually exclusive - we don't diminish Topol's scientific and administrative achievements by describing his role in the Vioxx controversy. We can do both, and in fact a neutral, encyclopedic article needs to do both.

  I mean, until my "harassing" edits today, the lead of the article didn't even mention the Cleveland Clinic. How can you write a serious lead about Eric Topol without even mentioning the Cleveland Clinic, where Topol was (as the New York Times notes) the "public face" of the institution ( [14])? I'm not sure how to understand Starriekittie's reaction. I guess I should just say that a) I have enormous respect for Topol and I don't see how my edits suggest anything else, and b) I think this is a case where Starriekittie's personal agenda is getting in the way of writing a serious, neutral encyclopedia article. MastCell  ^Talk 04:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Mills (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the biography of Stephanie Mills, the article states that Stephanie Mills dated Michael Jackson. This statement is untrue. I grew up during the Michael Jackson and the Jackson 5 era. This is the first time my ever hearing this. I believe the writer of the article is mixing the Wiz (the play) with the Wiz the(movie). Michael Jackson appeared in the movie with Diana Ross--not in the play with Stephanie Mills. Michael Jackson dated Tatum O'Neal maybe Brooke Shields, but not Stephanie Mills.

Cynthia Purdy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.130.67 ( talk) 05:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• - Stephanie seems to have said that they did date and that she thought they would marry. There's a recording on utube called "Stephanie Mills on dating Michael Jackson (The Wiz)" - Off2riorob ( talk) 10:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That is what is cited as a source in the article. I would say leave it in, although YouTube is mostly not considered a reliable source. In this case it's from her and the information doesn't seem harmful. BigJim707 ( talk) 23:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The uploader is not a reliable source (and even though I assume the recording was not tampered with: it is common to remove YouTube links if it is not from an RS). The original program could be cited but right now it looks like contributory copyright infringement on our part.Plug of an essay: WP:VIDEOLINK Cptnono ( talk) 10:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ian McCartney (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would appreciate some outside input on this as myself and another editor strongly disagree on the treatment of his expense claims relating to the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal and his stepping down as an MP while the scandal was still raging, citing health problems related to his heart condition. I've tagged the article for {{ npov}} and have been attempting some clean-up. The contentious issue is attempts to cite a connection between the scandal and the stepping down, as far as I can see reliable sources have not made the connection explicitly enough for it to be citeable and I think the article has been getting attempts to use WP:SYNTH to make this connection.

A statement in the article "McCartney was one of 98 MPs who voted in favour of legislation which would have kept MPs expense details secret" I removed as not properly cited was reinstated with another source. Sources given: Times, Daily Mail, Telegraph. I would disregard the Mail which is not generally considered a reliable source for anything controversial, so the most I think could actually be cited to the sources is that he voted in favour of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill which (it has been claimed?) would have prevented MPs' expense claims from being made public, but again I think this has synth problems as the Telegraph source, the one that makes the connection between the Bill and expenses, doesn't mention McCartney. Would at a minimum need a reword but is it notable that he voted in favour of this bill? January ( talk) 20:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I truly don't think tha with headlines such as Expenses row labour mp to step down the article wasn't reflecting wider coverage of the matter. But i have no objection to others looking in on this. RafikiSykes ( talk) 21:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Article titles are not reliable content to include in wikipedia articles - editors create them wilh a degree of editorial leeway and they are designed to attract attention, to be titillating.disclaimer - I have not looked at the article yet. Just a comment about that bill - it was misrepresented as I remember and the statement that it would have kept MPs expenses secret was not wholly correct. It was as I remember only a vote to keep some of the private/personal detail private. Its a while ago now but the claim was removed from a lot of MP BLP articles. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5339908/Ian-McCartney-claimed-for-champagne-flutes-and-700-table-and-chairs-MPs-expenses.html the foi is relevant to this article as it was only following its defeat that he repaid the 16000 so it is directly relevant to his actions concerning expenses. RafikiSykes ( talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be where you are moving into original research and unconfirmed assertions as if facts - the comment you made asserts something unknown. I have made a few edits to a neutral position, I think its better now - Perhaps if users agree the NPOV template could be removed? Off2riorob ( talk) 22:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Will read over it more fully shortly to be sure but you look to have reflected the skepticism in the coverage pretty fairly without being too cut happy so seems fair to me. RafikiSykes ( talk) 22:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some of this quote from Ian to the relevant section would make things seem fairer as it is a quote from him speaking about his actions etc. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5373428/Labour-MP-Ian-McCartney-to-stand-down.html "Following the publication of details from Mr McCartney's expenses claims, the MP said he was "appalled" that his reputation could be undermined by "misrepresentations, misunderstandings or, as I genuinely accept, real concerns and revulsion about the failings of the system of MPs' expenses". He added: "This is a system that has put at risk the reputation of dedicated public servants like me."

I wouldn't add it, I don't see as its really required to balance the current content and it seems a bit soapboxy, perhaps the other users will disagree though - perhaps wait for some feedback from User:January. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I must add that although I have added some balance to the FOI content, I still don't really support its inclusion. Its just so cherry picked from all the votes he made, adding that one is leading and suggestive of motives that are unknown and unknowable. I actually support its removal for these reasons. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. While the rewritten version of that statement is better, I would still consider the second part of it to be synth (I don't think it's possible to avoid synth on this) and the whole statement undue weight.
I don't think the additional quote from McCartney is needed either, Off2riorob's edits have balanced out the content. January ( talk) 10:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the wording as it currently stands as it still reflects skepticism in the coverage. I will be expanding other sections anyways as he has been on daily politics etc talking about his work on the minimum wage and other topics so will be adding more sources in other areas. RafikiSykes ( talk) 13:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up this BLP which appears to have been created by well intended fans with little WP experience. It contains a very long list of un-sourced essays with the title Privately distributed manuscripts I cannot find any source that verifies them. Should they be deleted?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see any need to wait just because the tag was recently added. Also, what does "privately distributed" mean anyway and why is it important? There's no relevancy context for this section.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I recommend deleting this section of the article. The information is unverifiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Above, it was asserted that because a person's grandmother is Jewish, we should assert that they are Jewish. It worries me that this discussion is even being had. I recall seeing a similar discussion around "you did a Scientology course so you're a Scientologist." Surely it is inappropriate to label a person with a religion because the rules of the religion say they're a member, rather than basing it on what the person says. Isn't it time the community took a clear position on this? (Forgive me if it is clear somewhere and I've missed it.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 05:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. Reliable sources are required. It would be a violation of several policies to conclude someone was Jewish based on that "their grandmother is Jewish." It would also not necessarily be correct according to Jewish halacha. Such reasoning would be in violation of synthesis among other policies. Bus stop ( talk) 06:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. If a reliable source reports that a certain person identifies themself as Jewish, then I believe most editors would agree that can be mentioned in a biography. If a reliable source states that a person is Jewish but it is not clear that the subject self-identifies as Jewish, then there may be room for debate, which may become heated. If all the reliable sources say is that a grandmother was Jewish, then I think almost all editors editors would believe that identifying the subject as Jewish would be wrong. Cullen328 ( talk) 06:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as it is clear that someone saying "I'm Jewish" is not the same as their saying "My religion is Judaism". -- J N 466 13:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

JN466—an observant Jew is not very likely to say "My religion is Judaism". I think it might be more constructive if we discussed actual language as might be found in reliable sources. Bus stop ( talk) 14:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We have to be careful whether we're talking about identifying the article subject as Jewish in the body of the article, or in an infobox or a cat. Unfortunately, editors do not agree whether BLPCAT applies to Judaism, which makes it that much harder. Regardless of that, though, identification of the subject as Jewish, just like any piece of information, even if backed by reliable sources, should be sufficiently relevant to the article to justify inclusion.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23—you say that "...identification of the subject as Jewish... ...should be sufficiently relevant to the article..." How do we determine if it is sufficiently relevant? Doesn't the inclusion of that piece of information in accounts provided by reliable sources tend to imply relevance? Bus stop ( talk) 15:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to Bbb23's question as to whether WP:BLPCAT applies to Judaism, the answer is yes, unless someone can provide a reliable source that states that Judaism isn't a religion. As I've already suggested, if people think it shouldn't apply to Judaism, they should discuss getting the policy revised, in the appropriate place. Until they do, policy is clear - we do not describe a living person as Jewish by faith unless a reliable source is provided that they have self-identified as Jewish by faith. There is nothing more to discuss on the matter here - changes of policy should be debated elsewhere. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• This entire situation is a total "lose-lose" with regards to determining a consistant policy. If we were to remove a label from an article about a person (religion, race, nationality, ethnicity, gender) we're labeled as bigots because we want to suppress the information about that group as being noteworthy, since by removing the label we are somehow indicating that the label isn't important to that person; that the group is not worth noting, or that we're somehow trying to minimize the contributions of that group to human history ("You can't remove the Jewish label from the Sandy Koufax article because that means you are trying to minimize the contributions of Jewish people to baseball, that makes you anti-semitic!"). Contrawise, the exact same charges of bigotry are used against adding the label to articles; since it indicates that the label is somehow more important than the accomplishment, or colors the accomplishment, or whatnot, the label is used to marginalize and seperate members of groups from the "mainstream" or "normal" ("You can't label Sandy Koufax as Jewish in his article! What does that have to do with Baseball? You don't label every Christian or Athiest ball player prominently, so why even mention it in the Koufax article! Because you want to "tag" Koufax as Jewish, that makes you anti-semitic") I have seen both of these arguements more times than I can count; and so which is it? Is labeling a person by a group affiliation "bigotted" or is removing such labels "bigotted"? The answer is there is no one-size fits all policy regarding this issue, and considered editorial decisions need to be made on an article-by-article basis as to which labels are relevent and appropriate, and how they are to be used (whether in the lead sentence, or mentioned later in the article, or in an infobox, or as a category, or whatever). In different individual articles, different standards need to be observed, because the relationship between the label and the person is different. So, do we need some categories which identify people by their religion? Yes. Does that mean that every person who observes that religion MUST be placed in that category? No. -- Jayron 32 17:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  The issue is whether the person being tagged is noted for the tag. So if when a person is mentioned people in the wider community are inclined to add the tag as an adjective "Oh that Christadelphian business leader", "She's a great runner and a Seventh Day Adventist", "Wonderful dancer and Jewish too" then the tag is justified. If the tag isn't generally known within the wider community then tagging is less justified. If every Jewish ball player is tagged then someone like Koufax becomes just one amongst 1000s and is notability for being Jewish is diminished. John lilburne ( talk) 17:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—you do not know that "If every Jewish ball player is tagged then someone like Koufax becomes just one amongst 1000s and is notability for being Jewish is diminished." (I provided the underlining in the previous quote.) You are expressing an opinion. I am reluctant to accept opinions that result in the omitting of information—unless of course there are other—substantial reasons that a particular piece of information should be left out. I don't think we should omit that a mediocre Jewish baseball player is/was Jewish in order not to diminish the standing of Sandy Koufax. I don't think we should be constructing one article with mindfulness to enhancing another article. Bus stop ( talk) 18:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That is no personal opinion. If one lumps everyone that ever held a baseball bat into the same box with him, then his name become just one amongst many. How do you distinguish him from the rest here? He is already lost amongst the soso's. John lilburne ( talk) 20:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—We do not withhold information from one article in order to improve another article. We should be including information in accordance with applicable factors to the article that we are working on. Bus stop ( talk) 12:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get 'withhold information' from? The issue is tagging and labelling not withholding information. What the tagging does is to turn what could be a useful resource, for example the most prominent X or Y, into an alphabetic list of names that is information light. John lilburne ( talk) 13:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Andy, your post above makes it clear that you have a limited understanding of Judaism. It is a religion -- but it is not only a religion. The slightest familiarity with Jewish identity in Israel would make this clear to you -- and that way of being Jewish is not limited to Israel. I would have thought that all of this is clear to you from the endless discussion of Miliband. I suspect it comes from a desire to take a black-white position on BLPCAT -- be that as it may, your view is absurd. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 18:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon? Have I ever stated that Jewish identity is only about religion? I happen to be arguing the exact opposite - that being ethnically Jewish isn't in itself evidence of being a believer or follower of the Judaic faith. This debate is about "Identifying a person's religion", and as such, the non-religious aspects of Jewish identity are beside the point. BLPCAT policy states that we can't state that someone is of a particular faith unless they self-identify as being of that faith. If you think that BLPCAT is wrong on this, I suggest you propose that it be revised. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think most educated people are aware that being Jewish is an ethic identity as well as Judaism being a religion. It seems like common sense to me that we shouldn't say a person is Jewish unless the person self-identifies as such, and we shouldn't say that their religion is Judaism (or put "Jewish" in an info box under religion) unless they say they follow the religion. And then we should say what branch of it. BigJim707 ( talk) 19:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with BigJim707. -- J N 466 20:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

@Andy -- great, then there's no problem with "xxx Jews" categories for people who identify as Jewish in an ethnic sense. BLPCAT isn't relevant. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that follows at all from what Andy said. The "xxx Jews" categories are subcategories of religious categories and need to be treated as such. People should not be put in these categories solely for ethnic reasons. We have numerous "of Jewish descent" categories which do not conflate religion with ethnicity. These categories are where people who identify ethnically but not religiously should be put, if relevant. Yworo ( talk) 20:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Let's be clear about this. If someone self-identifies as ethnically-Jewish, they can go into a category for ethnically-Jewish people - DSK for instance is correctly included in the category French people of Jewish descent. Have I ever suggested otherwise? (Though personally, I'd rather eliminate the use of categories, list and infobox fields regarding ethnicity altogether - that is a debate for another time and place). What is incorrect is putting people into categories based on religion, without the appropriate sourcing for self-identification for such categories as BLPCAT requires. I note that DSK is also in the category French Jews which seems odd. Either it duplicates French people of Jewish descent, or it is a religion-based category, in which case DSK shouldn't be in it. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Jayron is right above about how both adding and removing the category label can be viewed in a jaundiced light. I still think the underlying reason is the inequality of our labelling (local) minority groups, but not majority groups. If if we make it normal practice to label men of European descent / white American policitians / etc. as such, then there is nothing invidious attached to labelling women of Chinese descent / American politicians of Asian descent / etc. as such. Bad-faith interpretations only become possible if some groups are labelled and others are not. -- J N 466 20:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, bad-faith interpretations are only possible if random, arbitrary standards, which have no bearing on the individual nature of each subject, are followed. That is, there is always a correct way to deal with the proper type of labeling of each individual person, but that correct way is not unversal across all of Wikipedia, it needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis, guided by the joint principles of verifiability and self-identification and most importantly of relevence. Your solution (label everyone with everything) is actually a horrible way to do this, because it never ends. My children would be Male White French-Canadian/Blackfoot/English/German Christian Americans. That's just stupid. You can't possibly label everyone with every arbitrary label which may apply to them, you need to pick and choose labels which are relevent, even if in some cases that would be no labels at all, and in other cases that would be something else. You also need to decide how to handle the label: In some cases a category may be appropriate, in other cases it wouldn't. In some cases it should be a prominent fact in the first sentence, in other cases it maybe something mentioned in the lead, in other cases a brief sentence in the "personal life" section. There is no one-size-fits-all principle which will allow us to equitably make it work for every article. Look at the person, look at the source material, and decide what works in that one case. -- Jayron 32 20:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Jayron, I would maintain that labelling Caucasians for race just like we label everybody else is something we should look at. Someone being Caucasian may not be notable to Caucasian readers, but it may well be notable to black or Asian readers. Otherwise I agree with you in principle, but the reality is that on an open site like this, appeals to editorial judgment don't work, and contributors applying what you describe as "arbitrary standards, which have no bearing on the individual nature of each subject", will continue to contribute here and do their thing. This is after all the website anyone can edit. Arguments about whether the statement "I'm Jewish" justifies the infobox statement "Religion = Jewish", whether a BLP subject having an Italian or Mexican grandmother justifies categorising them as an Italian-American, of Hispanic descent, etc., have been going on for years, and we are not making any progress. The problem is systemic and it will continue unless we change our basic approach. -- J N 466 00:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

BigJim707—you say (several posts up) that "…we shouldn't say that their religion is Judaism (or put "Jewish" in an info box under religion) unless they say they follow the religion." I take issue with the implication that we should not put "Jewish" in an Infobox after the word "Religion". In fact that is how reliable sources construct their own Infoboxes.

NNDB, the "Notable Names Database", has an Infobox for Ed Miliband. That is found here. Please note the field reading "Religion: Jewish".

NNDB also has an Infobox for Jan Schakowsky. That is found here. Note the field in her Infobox reading "Religion: Jewish".

The Washington Post is a fairly reliable source. They use Infoboxes too. The following are 3 different examples of Infoboxes the Washington Post has published for Jan Schakowsky:

Jan Schakowsky Washington Post Infobox example One.

Jan Schakowsky Washington Post Infobox example Two.

Jan Schakowsky Washington Post Infobox example Three.

I believe there is nothing particularly wrong with straightforwardly noting that individuals are Jewish in Infobox fields. The locution "Religion: Jewish" is standard English. This is applied to Jews whether they are observant or nonobservant. Bus stop ( talk) 21:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

BLPCAT explicitly says that we do not do this unless the person self-identifies their religion, in categories or infoboxes, regardless of whether other sites follow other policies. Such sources don't apply to articles about living people. They are not reliable for this information. For non-living people, a preponderance of sources is indeed sufficient. Yworo ( talk) 21:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, how exactly does pointing out that NNDB makes a false claim that Ed Miliband is Jewish by religion support your case? I think most of us are already aware that NNDB isn't a reliable source, and we don't need further evidence for that. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yworo— WP:BLPCAT of course says nothing at all about the locution "Religion: Jewish". By what reasoning do you conclude that the construction of a field in an Infobox of a living person cannot read "Religion: Jewish"? Bus stop ( talk) 21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course it does. To quote the relevant portions "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question ... These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs or sexual orientation". Clearly, the infobox "locution" you refer to is "an infobox statement based on religious belief" and so BLPCAT certainly applies and requires citation of self-identification with said religious belief. Duh. Yworo ( talk) 22:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Jewish" refers to both ethnicity and religion. To use "Religion:Jewish" it would make sense to ensure the subject specifies that it is the religion it is affiliated to, not the ethnicity. -- Topperfalkon ( talk) 22:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—perhaps I am not making myself clear. I am not asking a question concerning our WP:BLPCAT requirement for "self-identification". I am asking about the word-construction of Infobox fields. Do you have any objection to the word-construction "Religion: Jewish" as a parameter in an Infobox? Bus stop ( talk) 22:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Shirley its - religion Judaism. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob. "Jewish" is slang when applied to the field religion, the correct designation would be "Religion: Judaism" which would make it clearer that this is a religious identification rather than an ethnic one, since the word "Jewish" is ambiguous but the word "Judaism" is not and can only mean the religion rather than the ethnicity. Sloppy language does not help clarity. The fact that other sources are sloppy does not mean that we have to copy them... Yworo ( talk) 23:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I should perhaps point out that BLPCAT also requires that "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources". AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It should also be specified the branch/sect of the religion as it seems important - there are these quite differing factions - Orthodox Judaism including Haredi Judaism, Hasidic Judaism and Modern Orthodox Judaism. - Conservative Judaism - Reform movement in Judaism, - Karaite Judaism, - Reconstructionist Judaism. - Jewish Renewal. - Humanistic Judaism, the last one seems a bit secular. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "faction" is the accepted term - perhaps "denomination" but even that doesn't do justice to the variations and their overlaps. Also, many Jews who consider themselves religiously observant do not accept rigid subdivisions - see Conservadox Judaism. Others (such as myself) embrace an even broader overlap, though the article on Reconservadox Judaism hasn't yet been written. I agree with Off2riorob that Humanistic Judaism is really atheism or humanism with quasi-religious trappings. However, some might argue that Reconstructionist Judaism also falls into that category, if you take Mordechai Kaplan's teachings at face value. As for "Jewish" versus "Judaism", I think if you ask American Protestants what their religion is, the most likely answer will be "Christian" rather than "Christianity". Similarly, most religious Jews will answer the same question "Jewish" rather than "Judaism". We should use common language rather than make pedantic distinctions, in my opinion. Cullen328 ( talk) 01:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Cullen328 is correct in pointing out above that "We should use common language…" in Infoboxes. I believe we should be following the precedent set by for instance The Washington Post which constructs Infoboxes about Jews to read "Religion: Jewish". I don't think this would be "slang" as suggested by Yworo above. What would suggest that this is slang? Bus stop ( talk) 12:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's slang because "Jewish" is an adjective when referring to the religion Judaism, whereas the Religion infobox field should logically contain the noun form (see Malcolm X usage)-- Topperfalkon ( talk) 13:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What about sects. Differing sects of Judaism. As per the comments here, Jewish cats seem clearly to require clarification - Religious Jew - and - Person of Jewish descent (ethnicity) - inclusion in the first primarily when the subject has self identified as religious and inclusion in the second through primarily reliable citations. I also think as it is often asserted that someone with minimal Jewish ethnicity/genetics is a Jew that we should also create cats to clarify this, such as Person with one Jewish grandparent and Person with one Jewish parent - that is informative to readers and removes all vague who is a Jew misinterpretations. - or to defend the majority - Person with three non Jewish grandparents - Off2riorob ( talk) 16:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So much משוגעת in one short post... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 18:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the en wikipedia - not the h-brew wikipedia - Just posting an insult in an attempt to derail good faith discussion because you don't like it is disruptive. If you can't post in English don't bother at all. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets not forget Jewish person of American descent, Jewish person of French descent, Jewish person, as designated by ''insert phonebook here'', Jewish person who doesn't declare themself Jewish but who we all know is, so there. John lilburne ( talk) 19:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, the categories are already organized that way. The "xxx Jews" categories are subcategories of the "xxx people of Jewish descent" categories. Ethnic identification places a subject in the parent "of Jewish descent" category. Self-identification as a religious Jew moves the subject into the "xxx Jews" category. In those cases where the categories have not been messed up by people unaware of this distinction, the "of Jewish descent" categories are placed within various ethnic supercategories but not any religious categories; all the religious categories involved should only be placed on the "xxx Jews" category, not the parent. Thus everything is properly organized. The only problem is that a small set of people refuse to accept this distinction and continue to insist on putting people who only identify ethnically or for whom there is no source supporting religious identification into the "xxx Jews" category rather than into the ethnic parent category. Yworo ( talk) 19:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yworo, indeed, that seems to be the main problem and may be a point to add a note about somewhere in guidelines.. I was watching your discussion yesterday on User talk:Nomoskedasticity#Difference between .22French Jews.22 and .22French people of Jewish descent.22 and I was informed by your comments. I also am strongly in favor of the position that users/editors/readers are confused and the creation of category to assist clarification , such as Religious Jew - is required to assist resolving this repeated dispute. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that might help resolve the recurring issues. I'd say every "XXX people of Jewish descent" should be changed to "XXX people of Jewish ethnicity" and "XXX Jews" should all be changed to "XXX religious Jews" or "XXX adherents of Judaism". This would also have the benefit of discouraging adding people to the "Jewish ethnicity" categories simply because they had a grandparent who was Jewish and rather require that they really identify with the ethnic group. Whether someone has a single Jewish grandparent or great-grandparent is simply not encyclopedic and is of no interest to anyone except people who like to tag Jews. Not everyone interested in tagging such relationships is doing it for the love of Judaism, and that concerns me greatly in this whole matter. In some cases, such tagging may be used to incite harassment, especially in countries where anti-Semitism is strong. People travel, etc. and we should not be "tagging" people who do not already self-identify as Jews ethnically or religiously. Having a Jewish ancestor is simply not a notable aspect of a person who does not self-identify as Jewish. Yworo ( talk) 20:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Probably the most sensible suggestion that I have seen on these issues so far (which are being dragged out all over the place), there are definitely pro-/anti-semite taggers trying to further their own agendas, and genuinely confused people who, because they see "had a Jewish great-grandparent", want to cat people as Jewish. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—I think we should be choosing our Category names from the terminology that is in actual use. There is of course actual terminology supporting the placement of any individual into a Category, but there seems to be a disconnect between language picked for Category names and the actual language commonly encountered in reliable sources. For instance you mention Category names with the word "ethnic" or "ethnically" or "ethnicity" but we do not ever encounter such terms in actual reliable sources. We encounter instead terms such as "nonobservant", "secular", "nonreligious", "assimilated", and "non-practicing". These should be the pool of terms from which we should choose a term for our Category name. ("Nonobservant" would be my choice.) Similarly you mention a tentative name for a Category: "adherents of Judaism". But that language is never encountered. I think real-world use matters. Frequency of use would also matter. I think names of Categories should be reflective of the actual language frequently encountered in the sources that actually support the placement of the majority of the individuals into the Categories in which we will find them. Bus stop ( talk) 00:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, I hear you, but it's simply not practical have a subcategorical relationship that way. That is, "observant Jews" could never be a subcategory of "nonobservant Jews", so this would require yet another category to contain them both causing even more confusion. Further, categories names should really describe the placement implied by their inclusion in their parent categories. All or almost all of the "of Jewish descent" parent categories are explicitly ethnic, such as "People from xxx by ethnicity" and "Ethnic groups in xxx". I see no objection however to using "XXX observant Jews" rather than "XXX adherents of Judaism". Yworo ( talk) 18:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is actually the problem - sources almost are never informative or bothered to say if a Jew is religious or not and there are users that assert that they are without specific reliable support. I think Nonobservant Jew and Observant Jew might be beneficial/informative creations. Off2riorob ( talk) 10:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—a person may be observant, nonobservant, or in-between—and many are in-between. I disagree that "there are users that assert that they are without specific reliable support." At what article have you seen editors assert that the subject of the article was observant in the absence of the support of reliable sources? Bus stop ( talk) 12:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—you say "…it's simply not practical have a subcategorical relationship that way. That is, 'observant Jews' could never be a subcategory of 'nonobservant Jews'" No one has suggested that a Category "Observant Jews" be a subcategory of a Category "Nonobservant Jews". From where do you derive that?

You say "…so this would require yet another category to contain them both causing even more confusion." No, there already is the Category "Jews". Both Category "Observant Jews" and Category "Nonobservant Jews" would be subcategories of Category Jews.

You say "Further, categories names should really describe the placement implied by their inclusion in their parent categories." Category names should be clear in and of themselves, and the relationship between Categories and subcategories should be logical.

You refer to the "of Jewish descent" Categories. It is not clear what "of Jewish descent" refers to. This is an example of a Category name that is not clear. Does "of Jewish descent" refer to those people who reliable sources have identified as not being Jewish but who nevertheless have Jewish ancestry? Does "of Jewish descent" refer to nonobservant Jews? Is "of Jewish descent" meant to distinguish between those born Jewish and converts to Judaism? Category names have to be clear. There is no inherent ambiguity in "Nonobservant Jew" as there is in the phrase "of Jewish descent". Bus stop ( talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Amanda Williams (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John Marshall Law School (Atlanta) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amanda Williams came to my attention when this addition to John Marshall Law School (Atlanta) showed up on my watchlist. I reverted it with edit summary rm section designed to attack a single alumnus, not list 'notable alumni' as its title claims. No other alumnus is mentioned in the John Marshall article, either positively or negatively. Since then, similar targeted material has been added to John Marshall three more times. The two SPAs editing these two articles are 63.85.45.130 ( talk · contribs) and 75.72.235.91 ( talk · contribs), both located in Minneapolis. I gave the first editor three levels of NPOV warning and encouraged them to come to the John Marshall talk page, but they have not. The second anon appeared after my third warning to the first.

IMO, Amanda Williams is an attack page whose main purpose is to "get out the word" on Williams based on a single source, an episode of This American Life dealing with allegedly punitive sentencing practices in her drug court. I listed it for speedy deletion as an attack page, but the admin handling the request declined because although entirely negative in tone, it does have sources. The article gives undue weight to anecdotes of the subject's sentencing policies and lacks balance. -- CliffC ( talk) 23:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about John Marshall Law School and reverted the latest attempt to add the Williams information. As for the Williams article, I've cleaned it up a bit, but to call it an attack page is sort of missing the point. She's only notable because of the broadcast and subsequent publicity. So, it's pretty much going to be nothing but unfavorable commentary with a little bit of her response and some background info. The real issue is whether the publicity about her makes her sufficiently notable or whether the article should be deleted.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The John Marshall thing is a no-brainer, it obviously shouldn't be used as a coatrack. As for the Amanda Williams article, perhaps we would be better off with instead of a biographical article something like Brunswick Drug Court controversy. Gamaliel ( talk) 05:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article should probably be renamed if we're going to keep it, although the controversy is really about her, so I think we should keep her name in the title. But even if we came up with a better name, is the controversy worth an article? It seems to be mostly a local phenomenon and, although it's kind of early to tell, probably of fairly short duration. Interestingly, when I tried to find more recent news of Williams, I came across an article that called her Chief Superior Court Judge here, which is confirmed here.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Judit Polgár (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could a few folks please comment on the talk page about using "by far" in the lead to describe the subject as the strongest female chess player in history. This seems to have been disputed from years past and there was some kind of possible consensus but there was also objections. How is "by far" measured and it seems very un encyclopediatic. There seems to also be some possible ownership and tag teaming issues. Thank you. -- Threeafterthree ( talk) 13:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Boy, talk about injecting an argument into an article. It's not only the use of the phrase "by far" in the lead and in the body, it's the section name "Strongest female player ever", the 13 cites to back up the sentence, and the "explanations" in the cites like "the Polgar–Anand match explicitly refers to Polgar with the words "by far the strongest woman chess player ever". Whether the phrase should be used is a separate issue from the ridiculous spilling of editors' arguments into the article itself. That stuff should be removed.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is tricky. Chess players are almost fanatically loyal to the ELO rating system and its accuracy at predicting results. According to that system, she is the strongest female player ever -- and we can quantify that, using her ELO. The problem for article writers is that something like (I don't know what the exact numbers are) "Her peak elo was 2754, achieved on [date], whereas the next best woman's peak elo was only 2595" doesn't mean much to the layperson who doesn't understand the ELO system. A rating gap of 200 points means that the higher rated player is expected to win more than 85% of the games between the two, which ought to count as "by far stronger". And it does -- with a little bit of searching, you will find a lot of sources that say so too. I hope this helps clarify more than it confuses the issue. -- causa sui ( talk) 17:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I don't think I have a problem with the "by far" characterization. I accept your and others more knowledgeable than I's representations about the chess world, plus the sources use the phrase. However, the heading doesn't need to include the word "ever", even if she is the "best ever" - the language in the section makes it clear enough without resorting to what I believe is a fairly juvenile and unencyclopedic phrase. Also, we don't need 13 cites, and if we're going to make a point about the "by far" language, we should use the quote parameter in the cites rather than the defensive, editor-added "explanations".-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Years ago, when I first started editing Wikipedia, I made some effort to get the "best chess player ever" accolade removed from the intro to Garry Kasparov. The result was an intro that instead of making a bland statement of greatness, read more like "His peak elo of 2851 is the highest ever achieved; his record of 14 consecutive tournament victories surpassed the next best, with 9; he was undefeated in match play for an unprecedented 20 years..." and went on and on, leaving the readers with no other conclusion to draw, but educating them about his achievements while making the same point. Later, someone came along and put it back in and I found myself in the exact same debate again and it just wasn't worth it. People seem to expect to have these kinds of statements in the intro when they are so incontrovertibly true as they are in the respective cases of Garry Kasparov and Judit Polgar. It seems it can't be helped. Regards, causa sui ( talk) 17:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, and god knows I don't like resurfacing debates, but I'm not advocating that we remove "by far" from the lead or from the body. I just want to remove the word "ever" from the section header. The section header would still say "Strongest female player", and the "by far" sentence would still be the first sentence in the section.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been one particularly persistent editor who seems to be insisting on inserting allegations about whether Karl Denninger‎ was involved in Santeneria (as well as his lack of influence). I have no idea whether this is true but the evidence offered - mostly pagan mailing lists - really is not up to WP:BLP standards. Could the page be semi-protected and stop the user Johnnyringo49 from editing the article?

JASpencer ( talk) 21:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've requested it at WP:RFPP. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 22:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a bit of a low-level edit war going on at James Randi with a new user removing "None (Atheist)" from the infobox. That user is now blocked for edit-warring. The only other place that I can recall seeing "religion" in an infobox for a person is at L. Ron Hubbard. It seems to me that this would be better dealt with in the body of the article and/or categories if religion is an important facet of a person's notability. Is it customary to have religion in infoboxes? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 16:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes -- it is in the template. It is not an either/or situation (same as reflecting nationality, or date of birth, or location of death in both the article body and infobox). The infobox is summary in nature.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my question - the existence of the parameter aside, is it customary to have the person's religion specified in the infobox? It does not appear to be generally used. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 16:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No it is not 'customary' -- not every field in an infobox is expected to be filled in. One on religion should only be used if it is relevant to the person's notability, and furthermore, it must be sourced by self-assertion if relating to a living person, per WP:BLPCAT policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is not customary to include an individual's religion in the infobox. Only if the religion is reliably sourced and specifically tied to the individual's notability should it be included. Although this is pretty basic BLP policy, it is also reiterated in the instructions for Template:Infobox person. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone offer up some other articles in which this is used? If it is rarely used, perhaps it is worth discussing the wisdom of having that parameter at all. Epeefleche, if you have examples, please post them. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The infoboxes of ideological/holy leaders and religious figureheads will sometimes include the category (example Ghandi, Jimmy Swaggart).-- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

religion = none or = atheist and variations thereof is particularly silly way to abuse that attribute. The attribute is about the presence of religion rather than it's absence. Oddly, no one ever puts party i.e. Political party = none/not interested. I think all of those religion = none or = atheist need to be removed. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree, except in situations wherein the subject specifically self-identifies as "atheist". -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a requirement for inclusion: see WP:BLPCAT. But it also has to be relevant to the person's notability. Why we have to go over this discussion repeatedly, when policy is clear, is beyond me... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

...which I already noted in my message posted at 16:59 above. -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Atheism isn't a religion. It can't be included in an infobox using the religion attribute because it's impossible to find a reliable source that says that someone's religion is atheism. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What does relevance to notability have to do with religion? Is the year in which someone was born relevant to their notability? (Yet that is noted in an Infobox.) Is their nationality necessarily relevant to their notability? That too is noted in an Infobox. Bus stop ( talk) 18:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"What does relevance to notability have to do with religion?" I find it disappointing that you can spend as much time on this board as you do and still ask that question. Your posts here in general show a flawed and unfortunately lax view of WP:BLP, what it represents, and how it is enforced. Equating a year of birth with someone's religion is a non sequitur; one is immutable fact, the other a personal identification with a social/cultural construct. If you don't agree with the policy, then start an RfC to change it; repeatedly requesting clarification for information that has been explained to you ad nauseam does nothing but exhaust the patience of other editors. Again, if you believe WP:BLPCAT is flawed, then take measures to initiate change, but please stop the constant battle with those trying to abide by and enforce it. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm flipping through a couple of biographical dictionaries on my desk, and whilst they give a DOB/DOD none of them feature religion unless the person was a theologian, or their religious upbringing was otherwise a part of their notability. John lilburne ( talk) 19:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there is an argument to be made that "religion" here is shorthand for a more general classification of religious belief. In such case, I don't think it is unreasonable for "Atheist" to be a valid value in that field. Assuming, of course, that the field should exist in the first place.

I don't see the value of having "religion" in the infobox at all. If the person's religion is relevant, it will be covered in the body of the article and in categories. I don't tend to classify people by religion, so my view may not be shared - does anyone have a sense of whether or not this is desirable for readers? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 20:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If someone's religious beliefs are relevant to their notability, it should be discussed in the article, where it can be properly sourced, and its relevance demonstrated. If it isn't relevant, it shouldn't be in the infobox in any case, per WP:BLPCAT. Too often, Wikipedia BLPs are treated as if they were a database cum dumping-ground for random 'facts' that are only relevant to the person including them - or are inserted to push some POV or another. Infoboxes just make this sort of unencyclopaedic nonsense easier. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is right, however I'll also say that if we allow atheism to be described as a religion in the infobox we're going against our NPOV policy however we try to explain it to ourselves. Dougweller ( talk) 21:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the value of listing someone's birthday in the infobox at all. Or what town they were born in. They almost never relate to the person's notability. Still -- RSs do reflect them, and that's what matters. We follow the RSs. We don't replace their approach, per our own POV.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources report all kinds of trivia that we choose not to include here (for the most part) because this is an encyclopedia. No one in this discussion has suggested that we do not include information about a person's religion if it is both relevant and properly sourced. The question is, simply put, should religion be a parameter in the infobox? You suggested earlier that it is commonly used. If you can offer examples, that might be helpful to this discussion. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 02:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care a lot about a person's religion (or lack thereof), but I think it's perfectly fine to list it in the infobox if the subject themself cares enough about this issue to discuss their beliefs publicly. (I was one of the editors that reverted the Randi article, so I was involved in this edit war, even though I didn't realise it was one until I saw the page reverted again later.) As to the question if this is parameter is in use, just check a few politician biographies, most of them list the religion. -- Six words ( talk) 21:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a mistake to refer to atheism as a religion. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not referred to as religion, the box reads "Religion - none". Atheist is only in brackets, because that's what he identifies as. If he self-identified as agnostic, secular humanist, bright or whatever, that would be in the brackets. -- Six words ( talk) 22:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Depsite the fact that I'm about to disagree with many people with whom I usually agree here goes. James Randi is absolutely notable as an atheist, because he is a professional skeptic. I don't know if "Religion=" is the right place to mention it but I would support, 110% the notion of putting the fact that he is an atheist in his infobox. I usually don't support religious categories or religious labels like these but in this case it is well referenced and intimately tied to his notability. Griswaldo ( talk) 22:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Griswaldo, for Randi, skepticism in general is his notability. It is what he does and why he is known. For many people whether they are atheists or Baptists or Jains is irrelevant for their notability; for religious leaders, and in this case, leading skeptics, the religious belief (including lack thereof) is entirely relevant. Ladyof Shalott 00:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, fine, if he actually had a religious belief, but he is on record as saying he hasn't. Can Wikipedia be so arrogant and POV as to assign religion to a BLP subject who has stated he does not have one? Furthermore, saying "skepticism in general is his notability" is irrelevant. Skepticism isn't a religion, and if you look at Skepticism you will find religion isn't mentioned, apart from Religious Skepticism whose own page states in the lead, "Religious skepticism is a type of skepticism relating to religion, but should not be confused with atheism.". Moriori ( talk) 01:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I said I wasn't sure if "Religion=" was the right place for it so please don't assume that I'm arguing for that. The "skepticism" of the sort that Randi is a professional example of ( scientific skepticism) is absolutely correlated with atheism and also with secularism. There is a reason why Paul Kurtz is the founder of both Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism. Griswaldo ( talk) 03:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Randi's atheism may (or may not) come from his skepticism, but being a prominent skeptic does necessarily not make one a prominent atheist. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that people are missing the point. Randi has said he is an atheist (as I understand it - though the particular source in the article is problematic), and in his case it may well relate to his notability. There is no reason not to discuss this in the article if it can be shown to be relevant - I'd say that it is. This shouldn't be taken as justification for a simplistic (and questionable) reduction of his belief system to "religion = none (atheist)". If it is relevant, discuss it properly. Infoboxes should be used for uncontroversial facts, not assertions which should be backed up by an explanation in the article as to why they are relevant. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Randi talk page has an OTRS note confirming that Randi himself approves of the article saying he is an atheist. The question of whether we say he is an atheist has been answered—we say it! The question being discussed here is whether we say it in the infobox. I think it is perfectly apt to say in the infobox that his religion is "none", and that he is instead an atheist. Binksternet ( talk) 03:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@Andy. In this case I do not think an explanation is needed. I think it is obviously meaningful. I also think the subject of the entry would be more than happy to have the in his infobox, but don't ask me to source that directly. Griswaldo ( talk) 03:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, exactly, I completely agree. @Binksternet/Griswaldo, it can't be apt to use an infobox attribute about the presence of something to indicate it's absence. It's the opposite of apt. It's wikitaxonomy. What next, |criminal_charge=none ? Many people might be happy to have that in their infobox. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Sean I have no idea how criminal records are recorded in basic social surveys (if they ever are) but religious belief, and the lack thereof, usually fall in categories called "religion" or "religious self-identification" or "religious affiliation" and so on. People who do not affiliate with religions, are called "religious nones" in the sociological literature. These surveys also use terms like "martial status" and "employment status" when many of the respondents might not be married or employed, or "income level" whether or not one actually earns an income. So while I understand the logic of your argument I don't agree with it's applicability here. Griswaldo ( talk) 03:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Point being that if there were characteristics of an individual listed by category, and I wanted to figure out if they were an atheist or some kind of religionist I would, because of clear convention, look under a "religion" type of category. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 03:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that we're only talking about the infobox here. criminal_charge is an infobox person attribute just like religion. It's only used for people with criminal convictions whereas the religion infobox attribute is often used for people without religious convictions. Strange but true. There is something a very odd going on there with the way people think about these things when it comes to infoboxes. For a given person, the religion attribute may have a null result, they don't have a religion and yet people want to note that null result. Why that null result and not others ? In Japan, it's the blood group that is a significant characteristic of a person, in other places it's other things, in Wikipedia it's the religion or lack of religion. It's arbitrary.

Category membership is a different matter. Categories are simply for finding things that are members of the same set. There are however an infinite number of sets a person is not a member of and we don't categorize on the basis of non-membership of those sets. I too would like to be able to find people who describe themselves as X using categorization but I'm not interested in finding people with a null result for a particular characteristic.

And while I'm doing all this complaining, I may as well lay into the whole notion of putting religion in infoboxes. It is of course nonsense. Someone claiming that their religion = X and RS reporting that does not make it a fact on the same level as actual facts like DOB, nationality etc that we record in infoboxes. We might as well have a pretty/clever=Y/N attribute for people who describe themselves or are described by RS as pretty or clever. I'm sure Nuon Chea considers himself to be a Buddhist despite the overwhelming evidence that casts some doubt on that claim. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is; a lack of criminal conviction is not often relevant to a persons notability. Randi has (self-proclaimed) no religion, and this relates to him being an Atheist. It is a topic he has written about, as a rationalist, and is a core part of his notability.

There is a sensible commentary here that "religion" is quite a specific term (although we get around that by using "none") and it would perhaps be better termed as "religious views". At the end of the day; his notability is related to his atheism/lack of belief and he is explictly happy with that definition/label being applied. This satisfies WP:BLPCAT which suggests that for contentious categories we favour privacy. The point of that policy is not intending to preclude categorising people, but to ensure it is done with adequate sensitivity to the subject. The discussion about the merits of having religon= at all is, I feel, a discussion with significant merit, but actually only tangentially related to this specific article ;) -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 11:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I am convinced that the use of infoboxes for trivial information is too widespread on Wikipedia, and that material which is opinion about a person, rather than simple factual statements, should not be used whether on religion or on any other material which is not clear and demonstrable fact. Andy is right again. Randi would not be harmed in any way by making the "atheism" reference in the body of the article and not in the infobox, nor would a lot of people be harmed by having material currently in their infobox be only present in the article. Infoboxes != articles, so lack of an objection is not a reason to ignore this larger issue. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 11:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sean. "In Wikipedia it's the religion or lack of religion ..." Really? I don't buy that. I think a very few people of certain self-identifications are obsessed with labeling others who belong to their group, and I think for others religion becomes conentious needlessly, but I don't think Wikipedia as a whole is obsessed with religious labeling. For most people the religion attribute is a "null" result in the sense that it doesn't matter one bit. But for some people it is a very big part of who they are as notable individuals. For James Randi this is the case, and for scientific skepticism in general there is a meaningful link between secularism and skepticism. I agree that 99% of the time this is a useless category, but I do not think we should be throwing the baby out with the bath water. When I used the term "category" I meant in the general sense, not in the Wikipedia sense. People like Richard Dawkins or James Randi fall into the category of the Pope and other religious figures. It is meaningful to label them based on their religious/non-religious identities, because their public personas are intimately tied to those identities. Your last point is irrelevant to this discussion because we are talking about a clear cut case, and not a controversial one. Griswaldo ( talk) 11:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@Errant. I agree and I would welcome a more general discussion about infoboxes or about the religion category within them because such a discussion does have merit. However, such a discussion needs to be more general. As long as we are going to label some people in this way, we need to be consistent. Griswaldo ( talk) 11:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@Collect. But Randi is not harmed by having it in the infobox either so I fail to understand that particular argument. Look, are we trying to discuss the religion field more generally or the James Randi entry, or "none (atheist)" as a legitimate answer in that field? I think we need to focus the discussion to the more general topic if that is what people really want to discuss, and preferable in a more suitable place. Griswaldo ( talk) 11:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is that the absence of a criminal conviction is a key but unstated prerequisite to people being able to be wiki-notable in the first place. Someone like Natalie Portman probably wouldn't be where she is today and have a Wiki article with an infobox/categories/the whole works if she had spent her youth carjacking despite being both pretty=Y and clever=Y, bless her. My point was simply that there is inconsistency that I suspect is a function of the rather opaque way editors model people. If, in Randi's and related cases, this is about what someone is known for, why not use the | known_for = attribute rather than misuse the religion attribute ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Silly me I thought James Randi was noted for being a stage magician, and debunker of paranormal flimflammery. John lilburne ( talk) 12:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

He's highly regarded by beard enthusiasts Sean.hoyland - talk 12:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@Collect; you make a sensible point here. The infobox should contain the name, and image of the person, some basic & clear facts (nationality, occupation, maybe DOB) and then a "notable for" field which is freeform enough for us to summarise the article. I've never been a fan of using infoboxes to categorise people. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 12:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually this sounds most sensible to me in general, as per Sean's latest comment as well. As I said, I think there is merit to the broader argument of getting rid of the religion field altogether, but we can't decide that here. Griswaldo ( talk) 13:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to get the ball rolling on the relevant template talk page? -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 13:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Rolling. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of infoboxes is to provide structured data, which can then be used as the data in a semantic wiki, where ever piece of information had its assigned function, and one could construct categories or lists ad hoc for any combination. I would very strongly support using this for all properties of a person that do not require freetext to deal with--i.e., every definable discreet fact, religion & ethnicity are among them, as Is birthplace and high school and first occupation and all successive occupations, etc. , This can then be used as a true semantic wiki, to construct readable articles out of standardized arrangements of the descriptors. At present the available people infobox parameters go a good way towards this--if they were all applied, it should be possible to do a query that would generate the lede paragraph of an article. For some other simpler areas to write about, such as scientific journals, the infobox journal could if fully used generate most or perhaps all of the full article.

This would have the great advantage of permitting standardized reproducible layout of basic information, and, if a fixed vocabulary was used when applicable, of permitting people to search on any combination of categories whatsoever.replacing our current category system.

But at present there are two problems. One, is that the full use of them duplicates much or the article--many of the people infoboxes filled in most completely are the ones used for promotion. Saying everything several times over is a favored technique of PR writers. Two, is that the same terms that cause problems in categories cause problems here. For example I can describe my nationality as"American," but an American immigrated from, say, Poland, ancestry, might want to call himself a Polish American, with the terms coordinate , or an American of polish descent, or want to describe himself as having dual independent nationality. With enough work, these differences can be coded for in cases where we had the information: we could instead of debating whether to call someone a Jew, describe whether or not he is a Jew according to several different definituions, e.g. Jewish under orthodox halacha & also a/c reform halacha, practicing (each) of the sects of the Jewish religion. The person who would then decide whether this is important or relevant would be not us, but the reader, just as it should be a/c NPOV.

We should therefore not remove any of the existing parameters from the templates, but expand them. That something is difficult to edit does not meanwe solve the difficulty by not including it. Whole fields are difficult to edit. Indeed, I've heard it proposed we should omit all blps, because of the difficulty they cause. DGG ( talk ) 14:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

( edit conflict)I really don't see a problem here - using the parameter isn't obligatory, but if the article subject is vocal about their belief, why shouldn't we mention it in the infobox?

The "criminal conviction" argument is a bit silly in my eyes. We don't usually include "criminal conviction=none" because that's "normal", i.e. unless reliable sources tell us there's a conviction, we assume there's none. It would be great if the same was true for one's (religious) beliefs, but it isn't, many people don't only assume you're religious unless you explicitly state the opposite, but also assume you're part of one of the "main religions" (quite often forgetting that Buddhism and Hinduism are world religions, too) because to them, that's "normal". There's no harm in allowing (not mandating) religion or lack of religion to be mentioned in the infobox. -- Six words ( talk) 14:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I agree with DGG. In particular I agree that we should expand the existing parameters, or fields. I have suggested more possibilities rather than fewer possibilities as concerns Infobox fields myself, in another thread. In particular, I have suggested that there be a field for "Religious identity". My reasoning is that the availability of "Religious identity" potentially bypasses the sticky question of whether or not someone is literally of a religion. It responds to the reasonable point often raised by others that religion is only a "social construct". I think a field such as "Religious identity" should be added to Infoboxes that already have fields such as "Ethnicity" and "Religion". In a field such as "Religious identity" it may be possible, depending on what support in sources is found, to indicate what an individual feels his/her orientation may be, without the necessity of demonstrating any conformance with any particular religious doctrine. I think this also opens up to a greater degree the possibility of non-objectionably inserting such designators as "atheist", "agnostic" and "None" in that field—also again subject to the availability of support in sources. Bus stop ( talk) 14:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

While all valid views, perhaps they would be better expressed in the discussion on the template's talk page now that a discussion has been started there. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, we aren't going to add fields to infoboxes just so you can insert your POV-pushing garbage. Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

( edit conflict)DGG; the goal of using semantic, infobox-coded data to automate the lead sentence is not an approach I would ever support. IMO. Because I find it such a restrictive/formulated setup :) Now; I could buy the argument of expanding, say, PERSONDATA to include more semantic data for use in other situations. But for display on Wikipedia in the article I believe the most optimal approach is not to duplicate information and to give a much more "freeform" option for editors to summarise the individual in question. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 15:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—Wikipedia has terms that have definitions. All reasonable editors agree on the policies that are arrived at by consensus. Just as we have agreed at some past point in time that there are fields in some Infoboxes for "ethnicity" and "religion" so too can we agree at some future point in time that a field be included for "religious identity". You don't have to agree with my suggestion, but (in response to your post here) can we please try to disagree amiably? Have a great day. (I won't be responding to further posts if I consider them nonconstructive.) Bus stop ( talk) 15:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but when I asked you to provide a reliable source for what 'religious identity' meant, you didn't - it seems that you made it up to mean someone I want to label as Jewish in as vague a way as possible. Nobody agreed with you there, and I see no indication of anyone agreeing with you here either. This is a discussion about removing a questionable field from an infobox, not one about inventing new ones to argue over. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—no, it is not "Fine". You have to tone down the level of personal attacks and upgrade the level of civility. I am referring to this edit. I haven't called you a "troll" or referred to your input as "garbage" so please try to do your part to maintain mutual respect in these discussions. Bus stop ( talk) 21:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of infoboxes is to provide structured data Fine if every BLP could be reliably sourced and kept up-to-date, but it cannot. The religion tag in particular is added at the whim of editors, and often the source for it is based on scant information, regarding family background. Thus you have a semantic wiki that is incomplete and full of inaccuracies. Such a beast is useless. John lilburne ( talk) 18:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there has been a similar issue with regard to using the "religion" parameter for atheist ( Kari Byron) discussed here. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As I explained, I recognize the difficulty in expressing this and some other concepts clearly and unambiguous in a single word or phrase in a few special cases, and I am not attempting to judge the one that gave rise to this discussion. However, it is wrong and unproductive to make rules on the basis of special cases, since Wikipedia provides for making exceptions whenever necessary. DGG ( talk ) 14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The same issue is now coming up on the Dominique Strauss Kahn bio page. Is there any way to move this conversation toward consensus and apply the same decision there? -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 00:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've pointed out (and has been repeatedly discussed on the DSK talk page previously), nobody has provided a source where DSK self-identifies as Jewish by faith. We cannot label him as such in an infobox, plain and simple, per WP:BLPCAT policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-identification would by definition make it a primary source, because the person is THE primary source about themselves. What a secondary source calls him would be the most appropriate think, plain and simple, per Andy's comments about primary sources being illegit. And it is very nice that the BLPCAT policy states something, and it's something to consider here, but per EVERYTHING in Wikipedia, consensus at a specific discussion trumps EVERYTHING (except US law and Foundation directives because someone always has to trout out those exceptions so I'll state them first). Camelbinky ( talk) 00:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So what are you proposing? That we amend WP:BLPCAT? If so, this isn't the place to debate this. As for your other points, I'm not going to even bother responding. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—not all religions are the same. You are requiring that Dominique Strauss-Kahn be "Jewish by faith". Please note the following:

"A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do." [15]

I have taken the liberty of adding the underlining. Bus stop ( talk) 01:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"www.jewfaq.org" is not an arbiter of WIkipedia policy. In any case, note this disclaimer "This site is created, written and maintained by Tracey Rich. I do not claim to be a rabbi or an expert on Judaism..." [16]. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—can you provide a source to support a countervailing view to the one I've presented above? Our aim is to inform. If we are speaking of the Jewish religion shouldn't we be measuring individuals up against the standards of that religion? Or when testing to see if someone is a Jew or not should we measure them against the standards of another religion? Please provide a source to support any assertion you wish to make, as I have above. Bus stop ( talk) 01:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Our aim is to inform using quality reliable secondary sources. We should not be measuring anybody against any set of religious standards -- that's original research. Furthermore, BLP standards for religious self-identification also apply. -- ArglebargleIV ( talk) 01:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Arglebargle—we have it said about Dominique Strauss-Kahn that "he has always been open about his faith". The source is the Jewish Daily Forward. It repeats numerous times that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is Jewish. Bus stop ( talk) 01:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think that qualifies as 'self-identification' with the Judaic faith, then take it to WP:RS/N and ask for confirmation - it doesn't look like it to me. 01:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No. If you wish to propose an amendment to WP:BLPCAT to state that it doesn't apply to people of Jewish ethnicity, then do so - but not here. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "If you wish to propose an amendment to WP:BLPCAT to state that it doesn't apply to people of Jewish ethnicity, then do so - but not here."

Policy is as applicable to Jews as to members of any other religion, obviously. I don't think there is necessarily a need to "propose an amendment". But Jewish identity is not dependent on such factors as "belief", "practice", or "worship". Policy needs to be applied to the particular religion under consideration. Obviously different religions are going to have different definitions of themselves. We should respect each religion for the definition that it posits for itself. Bus stop ( talk) 02:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Now there's a nice example of a circular argument. We are debating whether DSK is Jewish by faith, and you propose that we determine this according to the rules (supposedly - this seems to be a matter of some debate) of the Jewish faith, which of course are only applicable if he is a believer in the Jewish faith, which he is because the rules of the Jewish faith says he must be, even if he has given no indication that he is, but that doesn't matter, because as a Jew he is a member anyway... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, what is your obsession with the Jewish people and your inability to understand that being a Jew and Jews identifying others as Jews has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION, as has been pointed out to you numerous times by numerous editors at length. It is not the Jewish faith that says he is a Jew, it is our culture that says someone is a Jew by birth. Your unhealthy obsession with Jews and any discussion regarding race, religion, etc and having to declare that things have to be "fair" for whites and "no special treatment for other groups" is getting annoying. I'm thinking maybe a break to do some real editing in the encyclopedia would do you some good. You've been here only one year, obviously have not gone through the archives of different policy pages and learned WHY things are the way things are (obvious to me from your comments at the 5P page and elsewhere). You should really have some deference to those who've been here longer and have actually participated in many more discussions and know what was actually intended by the wording in specific policies and which policies are not used in the specific way in which they are written. There is a large amount of "oral law" in Wikipedia. You need more experience at editing before you continue to be so forceful in pushing your "conservative" literal viewpoint on policy. Frankly I suggest Busstop just simply ignores you and disengages and that in future discussions those of us with opposing views to you simply ignore your remarks which are not educated. Camelbinky ( talk) 05:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Camelbinky, I suggest that you (a) take note that this discussion revolves around the use of a 'religion' field in an infobox, and (b) read WP:NPA. The next time you make snide, malicious, and entirely false allegations about me being a 'conservative' (laughable), having an 'obsession with the Jewish people' (really?, As opposed to Bus stop and yourself. Yeah, right...), or as being 'uneducated' (as I recently pointed out, I have a first class honours degree in anthropology from a leading UK university, and as such I suspect that I know a little about issues of ethnicity, and about identity politics in relation to faith), I shall report you. (And incidentally, I suggest you read your postings before clicking 'save page' - you are simultaneously accusing me of being 'conservative' and of lacking 'deference to those who've been here longer'. A simple failure of logic). Finally, if you think that "policies are not used in the specific way in which they are written", I suggest that you take measures to see that either policies are followed, or that the policies are rewritten. The bureaucratic intricacies of Wikipedia are complex enough without there (supposedly) being 'written' rules, and then 'oral' ones which contradict them (presumably you can't provide a source to back that up?). AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"We should respect each religion for the definition that it posits for itself"...but we are talking about people not religions. Policy requires that we respect and reflect the definitions that human beings posit for themselves as reported by reliable sources. When it comes to religion, set membership is decided by the person, not how the set posits itself. I don't necessarily agree with that approach because different people use the same set name to mean different things e.g. a missionary and a serial killer may both self identify as religion=X, both mean it quite sincerely according to their understanding of how religion X posits itself, and have their self declared set memberships reported by RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What is missing from the arguments of Sean.hoyland and AndyTheGrump are sources. This is a source that tells us how we determine whether someone is Jewish or not. But you don't have to accept that source. Please feel free to present a different source which perhaps articulates a countervailing means of determining membership in the group known as Jews. By the way Dominique Strauss-Kahn is saying that he is a Jew in this, the Jewish Daily Forward article. The article reports references Dominique Strauss-Kahn makes to himself as a Jew. The first sentence of that article reads in part: "…Dominique Strauss-Kahn worried aloud that his Jewish identity would be exploited during France’s upcoming presidential campaign." Throughout that article there are many more references that confirm that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a Jew. Sources matter, and I would suggest Sean.hoyland and AndyTheGrump try to bring sources as doing so would tend to support their arguments. Bus stop ( talk) 05:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't possibly understand why you would expect me to take that seriously. You present a source telling me which decision procedure I need to use to classify a human being and the procedure is independent of statements by the human being. We aren't the Kymer Rouge. We don't go around classifying people into "new" and "old" people because a decision procedure says that is the right way to classify people. Such things have nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies regarding how we treat human beings. No one needs to provide a source to verify or dispute how other people classify a living person's religion because it's irrelevant and rightfully so. If a person considers themself to be a Jew and they say nothing more than that on the matter, transforming that statement to religion=Judaism is not okay. That transformation of information is not supported by information that originates from the person. I have seen exactly the same transparently invalid transformations applied to Arabs. Source says "born into a X community" or "his parents were X" gets transformed to religion=X, Islam, or Islam. It is so obviously wrong and against policy that it shouldn't even be necessary to discuss it. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll not waste anyones time by adding to Sean.hoyland's comments here - he is totally corrrect, and entirely in accord with Wikipedia policy, so nothing more needs to be said. I will however point iout that the source tha Bus stop claims "tells us how we determine whether someone is Jewish or not" is a website ('Judaism 101: Who is A Jew') containing the following statement: "This site is created, written and maintained by Tracey Rich. I do not claim to be a rabbi or an expert on Judaism...". I have already pointed this out to Bus stop (more than once I believe), but he persists in misrepresenting it as a 'reliable source', which it clearly isn't. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of that article reads in part: "…Dominique Strauss-Kahn worried aloud that his Jewish identity would be exploited during France’s upcoming presidential campaign.".

I'm now leaning towards inclusion in the Strauss Kahn instance based on WPCAT. _However_ to Bus Stop and anyone else who thinks Jewish self-identification necessarily implies a religious belief, I'm sorry but you're wrong on that point. Jewish self-identification _can_ just as easily refer to a feeling that one is a part of the Jewish nation or ethnicity. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 16:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bob drobbs—you say "to Bus Stop and anyone else who thinks Jewish self-identification necessarily implies a religious belief, I'm sorry but you're wrong on that point." [17]

I am arguing quite the opposite, Bob. My contention is that "religious belief" is not a prerequisite to Jewish identity. I have brought one source up above, which AndyTheGrump has objected to [18], on the basis of his contention that it is not reliable, and I will now present a second source conveying the same general idea on the relationship of "belief" and "practice" to Jewish identity.

Please note the wording in my second online source called Jewish Virtual Library:

"According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother or an adult who has converted to Judaism is considered a Jew; one does not have to reaffirm their Jewishness or practice any of the laws of the Torah to be Jewish." [19]

Please note the word "practice" in the above quote.

The following is the wording found in the first source I brought here from the website Judaism 101:

"It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do." [20]

Please note the word "believe" in addition to the word "do" in the preceding quote. That covers both "belief" and "practice".

What is absent from this discussion are sources representing perhaps countervailing points of view. If anyone feels that "belief" or "practice" are necessary prerequisites to being a Jew, please bring sources to support any argument that you may wish to make in that regard. Bus stop ( talk) 20:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion about the usage of the 'religion' field in an infobox. 'Religion' involves 'belief' and thus your sources are irrelevant to the debate. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—not all religions are alike in all respects. I have just presented two sources which clearly enunciate that "belief" is not a prerequisite to membership in the the Jewish religion. If you feel that "belief" is a prerequisite to Jewish identity, then please bring a source supportive of that. Bus stop ( talk) 21:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into another debate with you about 'Jewish identity' (whatever that means - it is simplistic at least to suggest that there is any clear cut uncontested 'identity' at all). This is a discussion about the use of the 'religion' field in an infobox. To put knowingly put 'Jewish' or 'Judaism' in a religion field for a person without evidence that they were in fact of the Judaic religion would be a deliberate falsehood, end of story. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—being a Jew is not contingent on "believing" anything or "doing" anything". You say you are "not going to get into another debate." [21] But what "debate" could you engage in if no sources support that being a Jew is dependent on believing anything or doing anything? A debate would exist if sources suggested that being a Jew required "believing" something or "doing" something. Judaism is a religion that does not posit that there are beliefs or practices that are essential to membership in that religious body. The two sources I have shown you could not possibly express this more clearly. Yet you persist, without presenting any sources to support your contentions, that in fact being a Jew requires some sort of "belief" or some particular "practices". I have just shown you two sources which state explicitly that "belief" and "practice" are not prerequisites to being a Jew. Have you looked for sources to state something at variance with the two sources I have shown? Bus stop ( talk) 21:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I have not argued that Wikipedia should put "Judaism" in the "Religion" field in the Infobox. I feel proper wording is "Religion: Jewish". I find as prominent a website as the Washington Post using that word construction in their own "Infoboxes". Bus stop ( talk) 21:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, Wikipedia policy on making statements about living people's faith in infoboxes (as well as in lists and categories) is explicit. It needs a reliably-sourced self-assertion that the person is of that faith. If you wish to propose that the policy be changed, then do so in the appropriate place. Unless and until the policy is changed, any entry of 'religion: Jewish' or 'religion: Judaism' which isn't sourced according the the policy requirements will be in breach of said policy. You are wasting your time arguing to the contrary here, as this isn't the appropriate place to argue for policy change. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I'm not so impetuous as to propose a policy change over every minor point of contention. You suggest here that I have argued for a policy change. What I have in fact done is post a reply to Bob drobbs which you jumped into. That is fine. I have no objection if you wish to contest any point that I have made in my response to Bob drobbs. But I have made the points that I have made with the support of sources. I have brought two sources in this instance. Perhaps it is understandable that you jumped into the conversation where you did as you were mentioned in my post addressed to Bob drobbs. But please let me just make it clear that proposing a change of policy was not something that ever crossed my mind. Bus stop ( talk) 22:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, then please stop wasting so many words and everybody's time trying to detail the ways in which you'd like to subvert the policy. Just follow it. Yworo ( talk) 22:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—Of course I am not trying to "subvert" policy. In what way do you perceive I am trying to "subvert" policy? Bus stop ( talk) 22:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that Anders Behring Breivik should redir to 2011 Norway attacks as it is, quite simply, the clearest of all WP:BLP1E cases.

However, to establish agreement for that would take a week, by which time it will not matter.

I am thus concerned about our true belief in our BLP policies.  Chzz   ►  02:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is as clear as you present it. After all, WP:BLP1E mentions John Hinckley as a counterexample, and it seems likely that Breivik will prove to be as notable. Also this was not "one event" as he is linked both to a bombing that killed at least 7 people, and a later shooting spree a considerable distance away that killed at least 80 people. We don't have a WP:BLP2E guideline, as far as I know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, do you really think that Breivik is "likely to remain" a "low profile individual"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know; I don't think it is my place to assume or speculate (in terms of this article). Are we, now, in the business of predicting the future? The article is all about his facebook page, his twitter... of a person alleged to have perpetrated crimes. Today. Before today, he was certainly not notable. If BLP1E means anything, this is it; if it doesn't - then, fair enough, let's update policies.

"it seems likely that Breivik will prove to be as notable" doesn't cut it, for me. That's pure opinion. Whether I agree is irrelevant.

John Hinckley, Jr. - there's books about him, of course. Now. But there were not, on the day it happened.

We're supposed to reflect RS, not generate news.

This is a living person, known only for one event; today. We've discussed that; we've formed a policy. If the policy is wrong, it needs changing through consensus - but, we cannot ignore it.  Chzz   ►  06:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think it will be a waste of time to turn this into a redirect. We had this same discussion in regards to Jared Lee Loughner a few months ago, and right now it is a full fledged article. What's key to me is the phrase in BLP1E is the phrase "and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" then that person should not have an article. Well, to be frank, with an event this big, he's not going to be a low profile individual ever again. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Our current policy states, Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

The article fits that, live a glove.

If the policy is wrong...then we need to change it.

Otherwise...I have no idea why we're ignoring it.  Chzz   ►  06:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You really think he's going to remain low profile? For what he did, it's certainly one of the biggest crimes in the past few years in Norway. They are definitely going to be holding a trial and it's going to be a huge media frenzy. Silver seren ^C 07:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• The use of "his alleged Facebook profile" definitely appears to violated WP:SELFPUB: "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 08:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@Silver seren - yes, I imagine he will be notable, Soon. For now, we're speculating.  Chzz   ►  08:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The best course of action when dealing with a possible BLP1E exception is to wait a week or two and see if the coverage has continued. If it has dried up, then merge. Silver seren ^C 09:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principle that, for now, Anders Behring Breivik should redir to 2011 Norway attacks and should not be a separate article; all the info about him either a) relates to the inciden, or b) is OR.  Chzz   ►  09:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, it can be unmerged / un-redirected later if required - but for now, it's as clear a case of BLP1E as ever I saw. Once some other sources have published stuff on"him, himself" - as opposed to "him, the current perp" - then we can article-ise him. For the meantime, this is sure exactly the kind of situation that BLP1E is designed for? Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 09:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• (Making just a singular indented comment so it is addressed to all of you) This discussion really shouldn't even be about merging or anything, as the merge discussion closed as "No consensus to merge". By the way, Chzz, you really shouldn't have archived it. It makes it look like you're trying to hide the discussion. I know you're not, but that's the appearance. Silver seren ^C 09:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• An article talk page consensus cannot possibly override project-wide considerations and consensus like BLP1E. The IDONTLIKEIT "consensus" to not merge is therefore entirely invalid. -- 87.78.54.22 ( talk) 09:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@Silver seren Blimey, that really is clutching at straws; and not a nice accusation at all. I archived several parts from the talk; I explained why. The merge discussion was closed as no consensus - ie, a keep - and I archived it, just trying to keep some order in the pages. Seriously; can nobody try and keep any kind of order - no matter how neutral - without being lambasted?  Chzz   ►  09:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

People are emotionally involved. Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 09:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If SilverSeren feels that his emotional involvement may cloud his encyclopedic judgment, he should disengage for the time being. -- 87.78.54.22 ( talk) 09:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, who is this? Silver seren ^C 09:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@ the IP: I think that was probably a little unfair on SiverSeren - he did make it clear that he wasn't actually making that accusation. I'm just pointing out that we're all a little 'touchy' on this one. Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 09:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but SilverSeren was actually making that accusation, then he quickly lampshaded it by claiming that he didn't. Anyway, nuff said. -- 87.78.54.22 ( talk) 09:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm the guy who lets you know you that you need to keep your emotional involvement and your encyclopedic contributions strictly separated. Unlike this. And unless and until you can do so, please disengage. -- 87.78.54.22 ( talk) 09:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you're pulling up a diff from an entirely different conversation means that you are either stalking my edits (the most likely one) or are the logged out version of someone from that dispute. Silver seren ^C 10:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

See, you're jumping to conclusions and making accusation yet again. I merely looked up your contribs (it's a public record after all) to keep track of the discussion. I noticed the ED talk page edit and since I used to be an occasional ED reader, I was curious and followed the link. Anyway, it is entirely irrelevant who is saying this. What matters is that you're currently acting agitated (and in more than one discussion), and that's not a good thing. Please don't dismiss valid feedback on the grounds of who said it. -- 87.78.54.22 ( talk) 10:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I said that I know you didn't mean it that way. My first thought was that you did, but then I saw you had archived other stuff. But archiving it immediately after it had closed gives a bad impression, especially since it was hatted, so it was taking up negligible space. Silver seren ^C 09:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is a fantastic example of crystal balling; as of this moment there is no evidence Breivik meets the standards required to take him above BLP1E; you're citing the Daily Hatemail, for gods sakes, a paper that's horribly reliable to determine if Ann Coulter's grandmother was a secret nazi pedophile who slept with Princess Diana and good for bugger-all else. Redirect it, and if the article later passes our inclusion requirements, we can recreate it. We don't keep things around "just in case"; we're an encyclopedia, not a lonely old lady with a bad case of hoarding. Ironholds ( talk) 09:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Then create a new merge proposal, it's as easy as that. Get consensus for the merge. Silver seren ^C 09:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah; I'll tell you what...get a consensus for the keep, instead. Until then, [22]. Show evidence that the article meets policy inclusion; don't expect to keep it "in case".  Chzz   ►  09:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted you before seeing your comment here. And, no, that's not how it works. If it had been no consensus, leaning toward merge, that would be something, but no consensus FOR the merge means no merging. Silver seren ^C 09:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read my reply to your comment above. I'll quote it here for your convenience, just in case: An article talk page consensus cannot possibly override project-wide considerations and consensus like BLP1E. The IDONTLIKEIT "consensus" to not merge is therefore entirely invalid. -- 87.78.54.22 ( talk) 09:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

^This. I have no interest in petty bickering. I've spent my last 20 hours trying to make this article decent, and I'm quite proud that Wikipedia has done a better job than other media. At this point though, I'll step away from the keyboard. Cheers,  Chzz   ►  10:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that it is not a BLP1E violation, therefore it is not overriding any policy, the consensus is saying that the article falls under one of the exceptions to the BLP1E rule. Silver seren ^C 10:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That is counterfactual. The opponents in the merge discussion barely mentioned BLP1E, they simply opposed the move "for now", just like you. Whether Anders Behring Breivik poses an exception to BLP1E was not at all discussed in the merge discussion. Please re-read it if you're actually unsure about that. -- 87.78.54.22 ( talk) 10:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E cannot be determined right in the aftermath of an event. BLP1E says that an article should be merged if the subject doesn't have lasting, enduring coverage. That cannot be determined right now, since the coverage is still ongoing. If you're saying we should apply BLP1E right now, then it would be clear it is an exception, since there is current coverage. But, of course, that's not how it works. We have to see if the coverage dies off or not. There is no problem with having the BLP up and allowing people to work on it. If the coverage doesn't last, then it will be merged, no harm done. But if it is merged now, then users cannot continue to work on it and it is detrimental to the article if it ends up staying. Silver seren ^C 10:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, information about him is expanding as we speak. Give it a little time. Silver seren ^C 10:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E cannot be determined right in the aftermath of an event? Yes, it can. It is a very simple calculus. Is the living person in question notable only for the one event? If so, they should not have a separate article. Period. If additional info (and with it, notability independent of that one event) emerges at a later point, an article may be spun off at any time. The question is not even whether to merge, it is whether to have a separate article. You're simply rendering the issue in terms that suit your inclusionist preferences and trying to educate you is of no apparent use. I'll now follow Chzz's example. -- 87.78.54.22 ( talk) 10:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, have you even read WP:BLP1E? It specifically states in the oft overlooked second paragraph "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.". Silver seren ^C 10:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, and the persistence of the coverage can be judged only after some time has passed. Until then, there should not be a separate article. -- 87.78.54.22 ( talk) 10:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• This discussion has already been held at Talk:2011 Norway attacks/Archive 1#Merge from Anders Behring Breivik and the redirect proposal has already been rejected. This is absolutely not a clear BLP1E case, because the person is the perpetrator of what is an extremely significant event. The scale of the massacre far exceeds the atrocity committed by Seung-Hui Cho, both in sheer number of deaths and the political ramifications. BLP1E says the following (highlighting is mine): "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Note that there are now several articles in the media which are looking at Breivik's background, and he is most certainly not going to be a "low-profile" individual any more than Timothy McVeigh was. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• That's what i've been saying. Silver seren ^C 10:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• ...and you're both wrong (sorry for breaking my promise). Are there currently any reliable sources that cover Anders Behring Breivik in any other context? No? Then BLP1E applies and the article needs to be merged, and the talk page "consensus" should be completely ignored as invalid based on overriding policy concerns. -- 87.78.54.22 ( talk) 10:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• All of the sources in articles that are exceptions are specifically in the same context as well. That's because it is that event that they are notable for. So your comment doesn't really apply. You're not going to get independent of context in anything for any of the exceptions, but that doesn't change the fact that they are exceptions. The important part is continued coverage after the fact that creates notability. Silver seren ^C 10:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• "the person is the perpetrator" Now, step back, and wait a second. He "has been accused" of a crime. Please note, BLP applies as much to talk pages as articles. We must _not_ be claiming he is guilty in here, and we should be assuming his innocence in our decisions whether or not to respect his privacy. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 18:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E is policy language which says, in effect, in case A, do one thing, but in case B, do another. People who insist that case A applies generally are ignoring essential policy language. In practice, there's been a strong consensus that perpetrators/accused perpetrators of major acts of terrorism are sufficiently notable to receive individual articles ( Timothy McVeigh, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Jamal Al-Gashey). BLP1E and BIO1E standards are functionally identical; the decision does not turn on whether the individual survives the event or is later executed. There is no basis for removing/redirecting the individual article. We also shouldn't forget that an important consideration underlying BLP1E was sensitivity to the privacy interests of surviving victims, not perpetrators. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 12:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We see here the reason BLP is considered such a laughing-stock. Not even editors here at this chat page take it seriously. The existence of the article on the subject of this thread flies in the face of all the reliable sourcing which states without doubt that no human being can be notable for only one event. Would Leonardo da Vinci-- once a living person himself-- be allowed an article here if he had only painted the Mona Lisa? Get serious! Without The Last Supper, he would be gone. And if you need proof that BLP1E is regarded as a joke by certain editors, just look at the image of Lee Harvey Oswald at his article-- a piker by comparison with the subject of this thread. Look at him smugly mocking BLP1E! This article must be redirected to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories if editors are to have an ounce of respect for BLP. Have a nice day. Dekkappai ( talk) 16:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP is not considered a laughing stock at all. This is not a chat page its a noticeboard for reporting and helping to deal with problems with articles about living people. Many people take BLP seriously indeed, including the foundation, and the arbitration committee and the founder and imo the vast majority of editors. Users that violate BLP can and will be blocked, users that repeatedly violate BLP will be banned from the project. Clearly there are people involved in a single major event that having an article about them is the totally correct thing to do - just like Oswold - As Hullaballoo states, policy and guidelines (and consensus) can easily be interpreted to support such creations. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wolfowitz, "an important consideration underlying BLP1E was sensitivity to the privacy interests of surviving victims, not perpetrators". But what of the privacy interests of the _accused_? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bob drobbs, here, and I am surprised to see such a statement from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, whom I consider to be one of the prime defenders of Wikipedia's BLP policy. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 18:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not unconcerned with the privacy interests of the accused, but I think they're addressed well by the general BLP policy. I think that if you look back over the history of BLP1E, there's more discussion on protection for people caught up in notable events than on those taking a central, active role in them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Rob. I was unable to find where consensus determined that Oswald was an acceptable exception to BLP1E. It seems to me to be a glaring violation, and such lax enforcement of this policy is what led to my outburst. Also, is it possible that the subject of this chat thread actually did this in order to get a Wikipedia article? The very thought that Wikipedia should be encouraging such behavior I find reprehensible. All the more reason this article should be deleted. Dekkappai ( talk) 21:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree this article is WP:BLP1E in the sense the subject has gained notability just as Hinckley did. You all seem to miss that after 2 AfDs, and three merger discussions, the article still stands. This is because reliable sources are clearly giving the subject notability. For example, the original PROD proposer retired his PROD because at firs the thought it was a hoax, and then saw the sources. Sources, people, not opinions, are what matter. And your opinion cannot be impossed over consensus, and while consensus can change, it changes in the same way it was created, by discussion process, not individual choice. -- Cerejota ( talk) 21:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Invoking a heavy does of "you should all know better" I have redirected the article and protected the page on grounds of BLP (and a little dab of IAR). The individual is notable in relation to an event that happened yesterday - as someone pointed out he has not even been charged yet. I am happy for this action to be reviewed but this is a crystal clear case of WP:BLP1E. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 21:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to let this stand for now, because I give it a week before he's split off again. But I don't like the precedent of individual users feeling that they can reinterpret the consensus. The consensus in the merge discussion was that they interpreted the article as one of the exceptions stated in the second paragraph of WP:BLP1E. Going against that consensus is not "following BLP policy", but instead it is deciding that your interpretation of BLP is better than consensus, which is both pretentious and incorrect. Silver seren ^C 21:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Policy trumps ... well policy trumps all. There is no exception here because this individual is not currently notable beyond the event in any meaningful way. The fact that he probably will be notable like for instance Hinkley does not have any bearing on how we treat him now. BLP1E is clear. Errant enforced policy. Period. Griswaldo ( talk) 21:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

For interested parties; this action has been disputed here -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 21:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph of WP:BLP1E is policy. Period. I wish all of you would stop pretending it doesn't exist. The second paragraph specifically explains that there are exceptions to the BLP1E rule, that there are subjects who can be known for one event and also have a separate article about them. The consensus in the merge discussion was that the subject falls under this policy-based exception. Again, period. Silver seren ^C 21:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I considered that portion too in light of the communities standard approach and weighed it against previous articles of the same nature. Don't imagine I didn't take time to review all the related, or possibly related, policy before doing this. I know most of it by heart as it happens, but went to read them all the same - this includes our various notability guidelines, BLP policy and other tangential material. One day after the event coverage is purely contemporaneous news - and no time has passed to judge persistence in light of historical significance. In addition ONEEVENT is fairly clear in indicating that splits are generally done when articles get too long to adequately cope with content. On this basis I took the action I did, and protected that action in light of it being BLP. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 22:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether an event can be big enough, that even though it's the only thing a person has done, we can predict whether it will all blow over or continue. Sometimes it can be hard to tell, but in this case it's obvious to me that coverage is not going to stop. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 21:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I kinda understand the "I don't know" thinking being referenced here, but I'd like to point out that the idea behind "not trying to use a crystal ball" relates to actual content rather than editorial behavior. I mean, editorially, we're perfectly capable of using informed judgement to make a determination that something or someone is going to need an argument. That idea is built into the BLP1E policy, quite clearly. What's more, it's been there from the beginning, it's not some new addition. This sort of absolutist reading of BLP1E seems counter-productive. The well-trodden path of creating and adding to Wikipedia articles as they happen is hugely beneficial to the project (Wikipedia regularly receives rave reviews based on our timely and topical coverage), which means that a case can be made that this sort of reading of BLP1E harms the whole project. This is just further proof (if any were needed) that there's nothing "common" about "common sense", I guess.
—  V = IR ( Talk •  Contribs) 01:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

But, it can be an article about the event, not the person. That's the point of BLP1E. We don't need to speculate about whether or not, one day, the person will have notability in excess of BLP1E - we can simply wait, and make the article at that time. I see no benefit in that article; it's all concerning coverage of the person as a result of the event - so could easily live in the article on the event.  Chzz   ►  01:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely; that is the logical approach - and the one advised in our One Event notability guideline. The reason it is enforced more strongly for BLP's is because they are a magnet for tangential private detail about the individual. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 01:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a "feel" thing. You're right, sometimes (usually, even). However, there are certain "events" that tend to vault people to such prominence that... well, the best description that I can think of is "trying to fight the tide" or "tilting at windmills" (and the whole issue of questioning admin tool use would seem to support that, I'd think). As I said above, it's a judgement issue (and the "wisdom of crowds" is pretty much impossible to fake or overcome in things like this). There's intense interest in the person behind the event, and that's completely understandable. As long as we follow the sources I don't see what the BLP issue is, either. Repeating what the New York Times and CNN are saying hardly puts us into any kind of liability situation, after all. Remember, we should never speak with our own voices here, we should be relying out the judgement of those placed with such trust as news editors. It's our responsibility not to attempt to insinuate ourselves into situations like this, but to follow along instead.
—  V = IR ( Talk •  Contribs) 01:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we must be discussing different articles, because the BLP I'm watching is having speculative garbage added every few minutes, sourced to youtube, facebook pages, and all kinds of other non-RS.  Chzz   ►  01:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just different expectations. This isn't at all unusual for a current events type article. It'll shake out, and for the better, if we allow it to. One good example, where I was directly involved, is the Neda Agha-Soltan/ Death of Neda Agha-Soltan article(s). Dig through the page histories and talk pages there and you'll see that what's going on now is relatively tame. Keep in mind that we're all fighting the edit conflict monster here as well, so changes can take a little bit of time. If you're calm though, and just stick with it, it's relatively easy to get through the morass.
—  V = IR ( Talk •  Contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just a random thought as I'm not really proposing anything right now but I've been wondering if BLP1E (and BIO1E) couldn't be divided into "BLP1E active" (something you did) and "BLP1E passive" (something done to you) with 1E-active making a stronger case for notability then 1E-passive. Example, if someone climbs up into a tower and shoots a bunch of people he's notable and gets an article even if it's the only notable thing he did in his life. Not so for the people he shot. Note that this doesn't mean that everybody who shoots somebody should get an article and I do think Anders Behring Breivik was created too soon. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

  That sounds like a reasonable and helpful distinction and generalization to make, in my view. I think it's clear that we need to put together an RFC in order to discuss all of this.
  —  V = IR ( Talk •  Contribs) 01:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand the application of BLP1E that appears to be happening, here. If I'm reading correctly, some editors are actually making the argument that it's okay to create an article on a living person, and then wait to see if that article should be merged, later? (many of the comments in the merge discussion expressed this position.) To my understanding, that's the complete opposite of the correct application of the policy. BLP1E exists to keep articles from being created about people that don't warrant an encyclopedic article. To that end, this was not a "merge" situation; this was a "delete" situation. We don't just create articles on living people and wait for the person to become un-notable (how would that even be possible?). We create the article, after notability is established. If an article is created before notability is established, we don't say "Well, he'll be notable, eventually"; we delete the article and only create it later, if notability is established. Wikipedia does not have a deadline; we do not have to rush to have an article on a person involved in a current event just to make ourselves look good. In BLP situations, it is always best to err on the side of caution. What is the harm in that? In this instance, we are referring to a living person who has not been convicted and has only been in the news for two days, due to his involvement in a single event. What's the harm in letting the event develop?  Chicken monkey  01:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

  It seems pretty apparent that the person in question here is notable. It isn't always so apparent, but there are cases such as this where... well, fame (or infamy) doesn't establish notability, but it can certainly help. Feel free to start another AFD if you'd like, but... I wouldn't expect a different sort of result (although, you never know. Especially on Wikipedia). In terms of harm in not having an article, that's more related to editor retention issues and building Wikipedia itself. BLP is certainly important, but in cases like this it's largely been addressed. There are thousands (literally) of reliable sources detailing Anders, the person, available. Building our content in response is a good thing.
  —  V = IR ( Talk •  Contribs) 01:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course he is notable - only for one event. We have a policy for that, and I don't know why we are disregarding it.

Incidentally, I believe DRV would be more appropriate than AfD. But both are probably pointless, because a) they'll just create DRAMA, and b) in a week or so (by the time we'd discussed it all), he probably will exceed the BLP1E requirements.  Chzz   ►  01:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

We're not disregarding it though, we're explicitly following it here. That's what everyone's been trying to explain, above! DRV is certainly an option, but it's important to remember that DRV is not supposed to be AFD2. I suppose an argument could be made to overturn based on misapplication of SNOW... I just doubt that the end result would differ. Don't let me stand in your way, though!
—  V = IR ( Talk •  Contribs) 02:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

But you are disregarding it - that's what several people, including Errant and myself, have been trying to explain, above!

The person is known for a single event - I'm sure you'll accept that much; that the only references available are a result of the incident yesterday. I have not seen a single reliable source with any information about this individual other than the news reports of the attack. So...lets look to our policy;

Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event - hell, yeah; the article is 600 words of prose, 200 of which are about the event. {... and conflict with neutral point of view. - right, such as, "Breivik described himself as being interested in hunting and computer games, including World of Warcraft" (which is currently in the article), or the stuff about his purported religious / political beliefs based on some blog postings he may or may not have made, or an e-book he may or may not have written (which are being added, removed, added, every few minutes). In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. - hell, yeah.

And as I just said, DRV/AfD would take a week or whatever, and thus be pointless in terms of the spirit of BLP policy, in applying due care and attention to an article about a living person.  Chzz   ►  02:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things to consider: undue... in terms of what exactly? Undue weight is usually applied to situations where fringe theories (or minority positions) are mentioned, or there is a desire to mention them. Is the article about Breivik overshadowing some other topic, or something to that effect? In terms of Neutrality: first, specific content issues can and should be edited and discussed. I'd not that the specific reference here to his video game interests is certainly questionable, but it's basically an exact quote from the source that it's attributed to (which basically knocks down the whole neutrality issue, since we're not the ones saying it). I think that stub of a section will go away regardless, but if this is indicative of the neutrality concerns... you'll need more convincing arguments, I think. All of the content about blog posts is, again, what reliable sources are reporting. It's not as though there are individual editors who are just making this shit up, you know. Overall, it seems as though your arguments are with the likes of CNN, the New York Times, the Guardian, etc... to be honest. Finally, In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. And, it may turn out that is is better to do that in this case as well, at some point (that's what happened with the Neda article I mentioned above, for example). Part of the issue here is that a bio article facilitates development of the content (largely due to the fact that there are technical limitations on how many people can edit a single article at once, and how large an article can get and still be accessible). Basically, my point is this: There's nothing going on here that's immediately and obviously Bad™. There's no need to be overbearing with this (threatening to delete the page, or merge it and protect the redirect). There's no reason to panic, it'll all be sorted out in the end. Nothing is permanent, you know.
—  V = IR ( Talk •  Contribs) 03:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the position I don't understand (and disagree with). We do not create articles on living people and later determine if that article should be merged. We create the event article and later determine if an article on the person should be created. You mention Neda Agha-Soltan; she is dead. She has living relatives, but those relatives have willfully placed themselves in the public eye. Anders Behring Breivik is alive, and he also has living relatives that have not willfully placed themselves in the public eye. These are all things that must be taken into consideration when we are determining whether or not a BLP should exist. You also mention that a bio facilitates development; that's exactly one of the reasons why we should be careful when determining whether or not a BLP should exist. We don't want to facilitate the development of an article on someone, their relatives, and their lives if that person does not warrant such documentation. That's why the logical course is to only create articles after notability (outside of the single event) has been established.  Chicken monkey  03:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

( edit conflict)

Concerns over biographies of living persons - especially regarding 'breaking news' - do require decisive action. A cautious approach is fine, sure - we can wait and see if historical significance emerges in time. I imagine it will - but why guess? Why not wait a bit? That's why we have these policies.

The article has information sourced to the Daily Mail tabloid - where we're presenting the name of the YouTube video he allegedly put up. (There was a recent discussion about using that specific tabloid as a ref).

We are repeating tabloid gossip. We're putting together bits and pieces from dodgy websites, and speculation.

We're almost promoting this individual. Do you think it's appropriate for us to discuss his e-book as we would the work of a reputable author - such as, currently, Breivik penned a 1,500-page long manifesto [...[ describes his background and discusses his political viewpoints. In the preface he says he devoted nine years of his life to writing the book...? Would we be writing about this 'book' if it wasn't for the fact he'd just allegedly murdered a bunch of people?

You're right that it can be sorted out in time; but in the meantime, why are we supporting a BLP1E? It's really very clear in the policy - we should be documenting the notable event, but not writing an article about this person who is, apart from that event, not noteworthy.  Chzz   ►  03:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as the basic hurdle of notability is cleared, article creation is perfectly justifiable. The content then needs to be looked after of course, but that's a whole different subject. Questions of maintainability, the need to merge, and other structural issues can and should be discussed on a case by case basis. I'll remind you guys that the article doesn't need to be an explicit biography in order to be subject to BLP.

Regardless, I find the whole idea behind this distinction between people who are still alive and those who have died to be troubling. I think that says quite a bit about the people who find that distinction important. It's rather disgustingly morbid, to be blunt, and demonstrates a bit of a character problem in my view, if you want to know the truth.

BLP and BLP1E have their place, and where applicable they should be enforced vigorously. I'm troubled however by the fundamental inability or unwillingness to comprehend what is actually written in that policy, and the resulting attempt to misuse it as a club. That there is this much difficulty in comprehending a basic, simple bit of text seems to be suspiciously, and willfully, combative and disruptive (there seems to be no issue comprehending this discussion, after all).

All of that being said though, I see from a comment on the talk page that at least one of you (Chzz) holds the viewpoint that we're talking about the people themselves here rather than Wikiepdia's article(s). That realization that this is a personal and moral issue for some of you helps to understand, but that needs to be addressed directly and dealt with as well. Wikipedia is here to say what others say, not to speak in it's own voice. If you're personally troubled by the coverage of incidents and people such as we're discussing here, then start writing letters to the editors of the various news organizations. That this is receiving extreme amounts of coverage (right now, on my Google News page, this story is #1 with ~14,200+ sources. That has nothing to do with Wikipedia itself, and it should hardly be surprising that there is a significant number of people willing to work on the articles here covering the same topic.
—  V = IR ( Talk •  Contribs) 15:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that some editors disagree with you is not a " character problem". I assume nobody here is being "suspiciously, and willfully, combative and disruptive". I also assume everyone here is merely attempting to edit Wikipedia to be best of their ability; you may do well to also assume this. There is simply a disagreement on how policy is being applied. That is all.  Chicken monkey  16:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I'm disappointed that you (Ohms law) don't consider "moral issue"s to be appropriate concerns regarding a BLP. Of course they are.

All of those 14,200+ sources are concerning the event, not the person. We're trawling together scraps of info. It's like trying to write a bio on me - grabbing the odd comment on a forum / facebook page. Some have refs, some are tabloid; some are just pure OR (based on his 'manifesto' and other web publicity).

The policy says, "it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event" - so, why are we not following the 'usual' path here - you've not given any reason for this exception.  Chzz   ►  00:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Because consensus can change and "usual" is invalid because of that. This is an unusual event at many levels, and it is logical and understandable that the communities' response also be unusual. Besides, the policy also states that there can be exceptions, and this seems to one of those. That is why attempts to snowball policy have failed, as this is an issue for consensus (ie discussion) to decide, not unilateral policy enforcement via admin tools. There are plenty of less visible policy violations in wikipedia that survive because of strong lack of consensus, that is actually usual too. -- Cerejota ( talk) 01:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I think you need to re-read sources. The Sunday New York Times cover is about Breivik, not the attacks, and there are hundreds of mayor articles in the world's press with in-depth articles on the guy rather than the actions. The majority of the articles coming out in the last 24 hours are about him and not the attacks, which are yesterdays news. Even wikipedia's reader interest is clearly skewed towards the perpetrator rather than the event [ Attacks]/[ Bio]. This has a clear explanation, people are going to the news sources for actual information on the event, whereas they go to the encyclopedia for a compendium biography, which is precisely what we do. There is clear interest (as I predicted) on this guy, because he is not a muslim terrorist, nor a disaffected teenager, but more like the Harvard-educated Unabomber - a figure that fascinates people. And just like the Unabomber, interest in him and his manifesto, rather than on what he did per-se, is what is of encyclopedic interest to most readers. Personally, I abhor that and think of the victims, but those are my personal beliefs, and I shouldn't make those keep me from making an encyclopedia. This doesn't mean we should merge the attacks into his bio, just that the reliable sources and reader interest (which fuel each other) clearly see each as separate and notable topics. This moots any and all moral considerations on a BLP - we have no ethical or moral pressure to protect those who do not wish to be protected, as Breivik clearly doesn't. Beyond a prohibition on doxing (ie primary source private personal information), I see no BLP issues, even ethical and moral ones, that would support a merge. In addition, unilateraly (that is, application of an abstract moral or ethical consideration to privacy of a BLP) keeping content out is censorship, which of course we don't do.

Lastly, the farther away we get from the event, the whole discussion becomes moot, as WP:SUMMARY considerations come into play. Merging the two articles now would decrease article quality of both articles, and rules be damned we should be improving not lessening quality.-- Cerejota ( talk) 01:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

it's not a question of needing IAR, but a matter of forgetting the purpose of BLP policy, which is to do no harm to living people. A person about whom extensive information is headlined by every news source in existence cannot be harmed further by a fair Wikipedia article about them; even if the outside coverage is prejudicial, a fair article here can only help them. We have responsibility to our subjects, and the responsibility to first to avoid having Wikipedia -- because of its unique status as a world-wide free encyclopedia indexed immediately and prominently in the most widely used search services -- give undue visibility beyond what the outside world would otherwise give, especially with respect to negative information; and second to to write fairly in what we actually say, with soundly reliable sources especially for any such negative information. Looked at with respect to criminal activities, here are minor crimes, major crimes, and crimes of world impact. Some have importance which cannot be judged immediately. Some can be so judged. The method of judging is common sense, guided by similar examples; the only way of determining common sense is consensus, and proclaiming BLP is not a free pass to avoid consensus. DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your initial statement, at all: the purpose of BLP policy is to do no harm to living people. In my opinion, that purpose seems to be missing here, however. BLP should not be some soft line that we can simply step over whenever a limited consensus deems one living person to be an "exception". BLP, after all, is Biographies of Living Persons, not Biographies of Most Living Persons or Some Living Persons. We should also be careful of using a news approach in writing an encyclopedia. We certainly should not be writing a BLP with conjecture and syntheses. In taking the news approach with Anders Behring Breivik, we are placing undue weight on one alleged perpetrator, when the facts of the event have not been allowed to surface: it is not known whether he acted alone, he has admitted the acts but has not admitted criminal guilt, he has not been convicted, he may use the insanity defense, etc. These are all things that would alter how we should handle the documentation of this person's life and the lives of his family, if we allowed the event to mature. However, we are not doing that; instead, we are behaving, in our actions, like a source. In having an article on this person, and in treating him as an "exception" to our rules, we are furthering a position. News organizations, trying to sell newspapers, can do that. We are not a news organization, and we should not behave as one.  Chicken monkey  20:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)