Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive104

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Sheria Ngowi (born October 1, 1982) is a ^[1] fashion designer[1] and a qualified law graduate.[^[2]]

Sheria's collections have been shown widely throughout India.[^[3]] His work features detailed inspired by the past since from 30's up to the early 70's suits,cut for comfort and not as fitted and mostly where double-breasted.So he decided to blend modern trends with the classic vintage looks to make his collection. .

His work has been featured in several International magazines;Mambo Magazine,G (Ghubar ) Magazine,Ellon Magazine,Baabkubwa Magazine,FashizBlack Mag etc.

Also his work has been featured in several International websites and blogs;MTV etc.1 00:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karibuwelcome (talk • contribs)

This isn't the place to create or propose biographies. This noticeboard is for reporting violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Some editors (IPs and user accounts) have been repeatedly removing and readding the IMDB link, which is an acceptable link to add to various articles on voice actors, to the Rachael Lillis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article at various times since late 2007. Today, one such removal can be found here, but I have swiftly reverted the IP who has removed it. Can someone please look into this external link issue? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, its not really a BLP issue, more minor vandalistic type unexplained removal, just keep it on your watchlist only 3 in 3 years is not so bad to revert. I had a look and one possible issue is that there is a nine year age difference between our article and the IMDB article and someone might not like that - just my thought. The article is basically uncited although we know who she is and that she has a bit of note, it would help if someone could find an independent report about her in at least one wiki RS. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I know it is not a BLP issue, but I wanted to bring this up. The IPs and user accounts who have removed it in the history section might be an IP hopper based in New York City in my opinion. Today, another IP from the same user removed it yet again, but it was swiftly reverted. It would also help if someone could watchlist this page for such removals like these. By the way, would this reference help clarify the birthdate issue? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Today, this link was removed again by another IP from the same user, but I reverted it yet again. I have already added Filmreference.com for the birthdate source earlier, since no one had answered. Can someone please watchlist this article in case there are any IMDB link removals? Thanks in advance, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a BLP issue, but I'm asking here because it might be and I want to be sure. Does the addition of unsourced information saying someone has died violate BLP? I've reverted several edits on the article in question (Fred Heron diff 1, 2, 3) from several different contributors saying that Fred Heron has died. If I revert one more time, I'll be in violation of WP:3RR, unless the unsourced edits claiming he's died are violations of BLP. I couldn't find anything on the policy page about this kind of situation. I've done googling ("Fred Heron" OR "Frederick Heron" death) and I've looked at nationwide obituary sites and can't find a source.

Note: I don't think the edits are bad-faith, but I do believe this kind of thing should be sourced. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unsourced edits claiming someone has died DO violate BLP, and the 3RR does not apply. Ask the contributors for citations, if they are not provided, explain again, after that treat as vandalism.--Scott Mac 01:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Per Scott. Someone being alive or dead is a fact that must be reliably sourced, and in fact BLPs are regularly vandalised by IP editors inserting unsourced statements to the effect that someone has died, or is about to die. Note that an edit like this also falls foul of WP:NOR and WP:V policies. --JN466 01:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above. --Cyclopia^talk 02:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

All right, thank you all! I though as much, but I wasn't completely sure. Better safe than sorry :) --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 03:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the most recent revision (re-adding to "Living People") is going over the line of reason. I didn't mark him as "dead" per se; I simply removed the "living" tag. I'm probably going to be attending the man's funeral on Saturday of next week; I think it's ridiculous to explicitly list him as "living" when we know that to be false.

Note the critical distinction here: I'm not saying to list him as dead without a source. I'm just saying not to list him as living. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the claim of him being in the "Living persons" category is equally unsourced and moreso unverifiable, since it is inaccurate. Please do not add him back in to that category. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The is history here, you may be unaware of. We've had problems with people who are alive being marked as dead, to their embarrassment and Wikipedia's public media humiliation. Thus we MUST have sources before changing someone's status to dead, or removing the living category. "I know he's dead" isn't good enough. The point is that a bio being out of date and listing as living someone who's not is no big deal. (Print encyclopedias will list him as living for years). If a notable person is dead, an online obituary will emerge fairly quickly - "living person" cats stay until it does. We can't hurt the dead by being out of date, we can hurt the living by premature notices.--Scott Mac 09:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

But you can hurt credibility by intentionally listing false information. I'm not even asking to put him in the "Dead persons" category without a source. I'm just asking not to keep him in the "Living persons" category when three users have independently verified that this is false. The family hasn't had an obituary printed in the local paper and they aren't likely to. (I've had several friends where this has been the case.) Do you intend to still explicitly list him as alive 30 years from now if this doesn't happen? He's been gone for over a week and I have yet to see any listings. He's a 66 year old man whom you haven't had any publicly sourced updates since 1972. I'll say it again: I'm not even asking you to list him as "dead"; just don't explicitly list him as "alive" when the only available evidence indicates that he's not. Doing so hurts Wikipedia's credibility. And if this listing isn't a "big deal" to you, please have the respect to follow the wishes of those who *do* consider it a "big deal". --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'll admit I undermined one of my points above by finding and citing a 2010 source in my last edit to his page (which I found after writing the above). The rest still holds true. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• - On a bit of a tangent, when people are very old (perhaps late nineties or over 100 or if someone is disputing they are still alive but no cites can be found ) and perhaps of little note we have strong suspicion they may be no longer with us we have this cat - Category:Possibly living people which considering its doubtful status is strangely well populated. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In reply Roger's comment about not being able to prove Heron is alive: There is also no way to prove he is dead using sources that fit Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. Per WP:BLP, a person who would be over the age of 115 is presumed dead unless listed at the oldest persons article (however, I suspect many people are probably presumed dead around 90 or so on here). Even if Heron has died, removing the category Category:Living people was a violation of BLP policy because it's an unsourced controversial edit. As such, the reinstatement of the category was not so much my saying "he's alive" as "wait until you can prove reliable sources for his death". I know it's a little antithetical, but otherwise, we could have any number of people claiming they know such-and-such and he said/did/is (insert something here). There's a pretty good essay located at WP:TRUE that provides some clarification on this. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Every reply for this keeps turning into "can't prove that he's dead", but I never asked to list him as dead. I'm only asking not to explicitly list him as alive (via the "Living persons" category) when this is (at best) in dispute. Since when does removing a tag require a source? *Keeping* it is the unsourced controversial information.--Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the removal of the category is an implication that he has died. While it's not a direct statement, it still carries the weight of saying he has died. This also runs a bit afoul of Wikipedia's "no original research" policy. I hope this helps, --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The title is a BLP violation. That would be like the following articles:

Bill Clinton (I did not have sex) Richard Nixon (I am not a crook) Dan Quayle (not JFK) Lloyd Bentson (JFK detector) Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact Steven Thomas (HIV infector) was convicted for multiple cases of attempted manslaughter. The sentence was equal to what you would get for murder in Finland. I have always considered the case a miscarriage of justice, but this is what the sources say. (Maybe in 300 years we will compare this to witch-hunts.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The title does look a bit attacking, I agree with Ryan - is anyone experienced in naming conventions? or have a suggestion for a better name? He was also Steven Thomas (rap artist) under the name Steven Thomas (Doggy Steve). we could move to one of these and add a note about the HIV infector at Thomas the disambiguation page. - actually its not much of a life story, its just about the crime, perhaps there is some list or we could move the article away from being a BLP which it really actually isn't. - just some thoughts. Off2riorob (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, his sad claim to fame is indeed having infected people willingly with HIV, not being a rapper (something that isn't even sourced by the way). The article sounds quite WP:BLP1E to me. Could it be perhaps be merged in Criminal transmission of HIV, where similar notable cases are covered, and the title redirected? --Cyclopia^talk 11:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) - ( Sorry Cyclopia, I missed your comment - but we both seem to have had the same idea! ) We have this article Criminal transmission of HIV which doesn't have a Finnish section, we could move the crime details there? and we have this cat Category:Criminal transmission of HIV with eight people and this person is the only one with such a contensious identifier - Off2riorob (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should probably find a better title for this article. See also Aki Hakkarainen. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Or condense them both into a Finnish section on the main article and redirect them both as WP:ONEEVENT notability. Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

{od}If the article were to remain, then we'd be best to use an identifier that points to the issue and not the person. So perhaps Steven Thomas (HIV) or Steven Thomas (HIV infection) would be mildly better. I think we should always use imaginative ways of avoiding negatively labelling people in titles, while acknowledging that the "contentious issue" is the reason for notability. Steven Thomas (rapper) makes no sense to me, we'd be as well with Steven Thomas (New Yorker) or Steven Thomas (b 1961) if we want to use an identifier that isn't based on notability. Best to differentiate people by what makes them truly different. Having said all that, a merge seems the best way here.--Scott Mac 12:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Merged in Criminal_transmission_of_HIV#Finland. --Cyclopia^talk 12:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know that this helps as far as the "attacking" issue, but wouldn't Steven Thomas (criminal) make more sense? I'd qualify "HIV infector" as oddly specific for a title. Note this is still an issue at the Steven Thomas disambig page, so the merge didn't completely solve this debate. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cycopia - I think the redirect can be moved also as no one is actually going to type in Steven Thomas (HIV infector), and this one Aki Hakkarainen could also do with merging in as well. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably so; I'd like to see the sourcing situation before because actually nothing in the article is attributed to a specific source and merge consequentially - want to preserve all that's sourceable/relevant and leave out the rest. --Cyclopia^talk 15:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have done that and found another source for the conviction, please have a look and correct any issues you see, Aki Hakkarainen - and I moved the other one to Steven Thomas (HIV) for the disambiguation, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool! thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 17:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Contains uncited "quotes" from various people (living, I presume) taken without any context, and categorized as "calls for death" and "calls for assassination" etc. I would suggest that assigning such a name to "quotes" from living people falls under BLP clearly. The redirect to that page is labelled "Smears, accusations and threats against Julian Assange" which may violate WP:BLP by its very title. Collect (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The page should be deleted, or at the very least re-written as a prose article exclusively from tertiary sources if they exist. Right now it's almost entirely original research. It also appears at present to be very clearly politicized in that it lists the ridiculous posturing of only right wing politicos. Didn't Hillary Clinton have some harsh words about Mr. Assange? Haven't other members of the current regime? (Disclosure: I'm a registered Democrat and have no "political" bone of my own to pick with this hatchet job of an article ... it just seems rather obviously like political mudslinging to me).Griswaldo (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a disaster in progress if you want my opinion. But speaking personally I was willing to give it a chance to at least improve somewhat. I'm going to tag the redirects though (as db-attack with no implication of bad faith). --Errant ^(chat!) 16:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Article should be speedy deleted. Have a look at the article creator's talk page - User_talk:Templar98 - and see his rationale for creating the page. Also Wikipedia is not news.Griswaldo (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What a mess. How many WP policies can you violate in one article? A POV fork only created after a consensus that this issue didn't deserve the treatment creator wished in the main Julian Assange article. Delete. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Update - I requested a speedy deletion [1].Griswaldo (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Declined ... but then deleted.Griswaldo (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Templar98 was strongly pushing for more coverage of this. This article was an attempt to redirect some of that constructively. It would have taken work, but I don't think Speedy was totally necessary. I was more inclined to see how it looked after a week, since discussion was ongoing. Either way, I suppose. Ocaasi (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced or improperly sourced contentious claims about living people must be removed. -WP:BLP does not say "outrageous claims should remain for a full week just in case someone finds sources". Collect (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The quotes were almost all sourced. The question was whether the article belonged at all. But the quotes checked out. The week was intended to improve NPOV, not V or RS. Ocaasi (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of BLP claims there. Quite likely many are reliably sourced, but the claims are serious and there's a possibility of some WP:SYN, some WP:WEIGHT, a "laundry list" of facts and claims of which quite a few are not very salient, and undue focus on alleged criminal records which in some cases are not proven in a court. Sufficiently uneasy to want a good review and 2nd opinion on it. The notability's clear but BLP aspects may need redacting - perhaps severely.

Per Scott Macdonald, when asked, the prose is also poor and mixes up reporting allegations with reporting facts. (hope that's ok to quote you on, Scott!)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This one seems seriously problematic. Most of the information is taken from The Smoking Gun, which may not be WP:RS (original article certainly isn't NPOV), and most of the other newspaper sources are simply echoing large chunks of the Smoking Gun piece. Some references to the Lufkin, TX newspaper are broken links. Apparently a couple of the people have claimed they were wrongly identified. Sweeping, badly sourced allegations about living people, some of whom have not been arrested or formally accused of a crime. Either reduce it to a stub or get rid of it under WP:NOTNEWS. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Broken links are not reasons to claim something is not a reliable source. See WP:LINKROT. And I would say that TSG is a reliable source. Everything in this article was sourced. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source containing allegations of criminal activity against a living person, which have not been charged or proven, gets set aside here sometimes out of concern for harm to the individual. I am usually in favor of inclusion, but in this case Smoking Gun as the sole source of allegations against private individuals not otherwise notable seems problematic even under the least expansive interpretation of WP:BLP, as well as raising WP:NOTNEWS and WP:1E concerns. I hope we can get some other more experienced eyes on this, as it appears to me to be a very problematic article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted a query on WP:RSN specifically as to whether The Smoking Gun is a reliable source in this context. I let the editors over there know we are discussing the BLP aspects over here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like some opinions on this BLP, Veronica Prego, a page I found because of the current AfD on List of HIV-positive people. I went to her entry because the list couldn't even specify her birthdate. This seems like a clear BLP1E to me, but to be sure, a notable event if the entry is correct.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time finding a good place to merge the information or is it better to re-title?Griswaldo (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How about the name of the lawsuit? Mention in tertiary sources like this make me feel that is much more appropriate than the current article.Griswaldo (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably yes. Move and restructure the article in the direction you suggest seems the best idea. --Cyclopia^talk 16:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Veronica Prego v. City of New York et al. but it needs some attention.Griswaldo (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better to merge somewhere. Did a quick browse but couldn't find anything fitting though. But this article will remain a stub forever. Garion96 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but at least now it complies with WP:BLP1E. I'm surprised that there is nothing out there that covers the larger subject of HIV infection in the workplace.Griswaldo (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, note that I did some work on the entry. More eyes on it, and additional information would he helpful. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fred Hofheinz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

When I created my wiki account, I read the fine print and believe it said something like: 'But please, keep a neutral point of view'. In the name of what neutral viewpoint does the author allow him or herself to judge Mr. Hofheinz's political career in such harsh terms. Shocking and a good case for libel in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9hofhei (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You were right to remove negative material that was not sourced. I re-added material concerning his conviction, which is very much relevant to his biography, and improved the sourcing. --FormerIP (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Im Shannon Lucas and i dont know who made this wiki page for me but there are some things wrong that id like to be fixed. First of all i was born in 1983, not '84. I was born in Staunton, Va. not Lansing Mi. and my middle name is Micheal, not David. Please help me fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DickWhiplash (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced contested information indicated above. Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracies. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Weir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Weak claims of comments related to a yet to be released article in the people on the 17 January, in regards to comments has about his sexuality in his yet to be released autobio. I just reverted an addition that imo at the present time and with the sourcing represents a BLP violation, please add it to your watchlist or have a look at the situation and make a comment, there is a degree of discussion on the talkpage here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The article's been released. It's dated 17 Jan, but it's on newsstands now. — AMK1211^talk! 02:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, the AfterElton article has been reposted on his official website. http://www.figureskatersonline.com/johnnyweir/home/2011/01/johnny-weir-no-longer-skating-around-the-gay-thing/

And here's from the Associated Press: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ihtu6Vz_cX-AMSJkR354balB1LLw?docId=c8d2463b5234478f9fb3e98f0007680f  — AMK1211^talk! 02:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Prahlad Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nothing has happened to this article yet, but it might be worth adding Prahlad Friedman to your watch list as a story that just broke is generating a lot of buzz (largely negative) in the poker world and around the poker communities.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Jaime Ornelas Camacho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To whom so ever it may concern, I want the point to be noted that the biography of Mr.Jaime Ornelas Camacho is not at all considerable and very inadequate as it does not have any sufficient sources and references.I've gone through many books and articles across the net as well as in life but do not find much about the former Portugal President.This is the cause supposedly because there have been negligible written records of the Portuguese History i.e. before 1978.This also marks the start of the tenure of the country's current president Alberto João Jardim.So I request the concerned authorities to simply remove the article since it does not passes several Wikipedia Citations and I find no scope at all for the improvement of the article. BY - $![)$![)... 15:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added the Portugese language references from the Portugese version of the article. Hopefully another editor will be able to expand the information in due course. The subject meets our notability guidelines so the article is unlikely to be deleted. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats very considerable but its of no use at all since its the same matter in Portuguese when it comes to the Portugal Wikipedia.$![) 3lmO $#@[)y 20:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Jonah Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Says he eats babies. Come on, guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.86.6 (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism, rapidly reverted by ClueBot, one of the automatic vandal detectors that check edits. Thanks for the heads up though, the 'bots don't always spot vandalism (and sometimes call it vandalism when it isn't). It looks as if the edit only stood for a few minutes, so I don't think a great deal of harm will have been done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I spoke too soon: the vandal is at it again. Semi-protect, or block the IP, anyone? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Jamaa Fanaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does this article really need to be more than a stub? Right now, it reads like a horribly written press release or a puff piece for a Who's who? catalog. None of his films have their own pages and the IMDB page shows a few blaxploitation movies as all he's directed. 68.97.129.237 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I did some minor removal of unsourced material, and agree that the writing/sourcing should be greatly improved going forwrd. I am a pretty bad writer so I will leave it to others. --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask someone to take a look at this article. I came across it while looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_HIV-positive_people, but having raised it there I'd perhaps be not the best person to give a neutral assessment: it does however seem to be sourcing the revelation of his HIV+ status to Twitter, and much of the other detail to a (definitely NSFW) gay porn website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this would be a much better source. Strangely enough this source was used on the list. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

True enough, though one would have hoped that whoever added Wyler to the list would have added it to the article too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

One can always hope, but it doesn't always happen. There are unfortunately quite a few articles on the list. I removed some of the stuff and added the other source to the article. Garion96 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Darrell Issa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A lot of information on THIS PERSON HAS BEEN EDITED OUT JUST THIS LAST WEEK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.204.13 (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are a few experienced editors at the article and unless you have a specific WP:BLP issue then I don't see anything to do there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Rob Couteau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robcouteau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Figlipped (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure if this belongs here or the COI message board so as I am a bit short of time I will post it at both. Today I came upon this user Robcouteau (talk · contribs) who is adding external links to his reviews of various authors and books - I know that is a different problem for the EL page but I am just trying to give an overview of how I got here. As I checked the edit history [2] for the article for Mr Couteau it seems to have been created by user Figlipped (talk · contribs) whose only wikipedia edits are to create the RC article. I know that Fig started editing after RC but it looks like the RC article was created to have a page to connect his name to the external links that were being added to wikipedia's pages. If you all deem that this page is okay then that is fine with me but I thought that it needed more eyes than mine to determine its suitability. Thanks for your time in this manner. MarnetteD | Talk 21:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• - It appears to be weakly cited and inflated, the type of weakly cited promotional content that would suggest COI contributors. Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged the whole spamfest for speedy deletion. Feel free to cut it back to a short stub. – ukexpat (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And declined -- I am too tired to work on it now, so passing the baton to someone else.....and I see Off2riorob has picked it up and run with it magnificently. – ukexpat (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Pat, I ragged some of the worst weak claims out of it, to get started, the article could use an independent wiki editor local expert (visual artist, interviewer? from new york} to stub it back a bit more perhaps, there seems to be almost no independent note? Off2riorob (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Subject is not notable based on web checks. Wiki article itself suggests no notability. Recommend deletion. Pnoble805 (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The article says he "is the apparent heir of his family's fortune estimated to be over 500 million dollars", which, if true might be notable. I've tagged this as needing a citation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I speedily deleted because the article as it stood made no credible claim to importance. Actually, I think this might have been a hoax, I can find no trace of such a person or his family. Fences&Windows 03:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jemiljan (talk · contribs)

This user appears to spend his entire Wikipedia existence adding non RS websites critiquing a living person. I've tried explaining to this editor how this does not comply with our WP:BLP policy, but to not avail. A number of possibilities on how to fix this problem come to mind, including trying again to explain our BLP policies to this editor, keeping more eyes on the article, blacklisting the sites, or a block. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the coatrack-y reference to the ostensible meaning of the name "Cordoba project", as it is wholly irrelevant to to this article, non NPOV, UNDUE. Based on the history, I suspect he will revert again, so it would be great if an admin would keep an eye on this. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Brewer, I ardently disagree with the underlying basis for your criticism of me, for the simple fact that you are mischaracterizing the nature of my edit. First off, I would ask that you specifically look at how I have referred to the sites in question in the article. I do not truly "cite" any claims made by them, which would as you point out require that the materials be RS as per WP:BLP policies, but simply mention their existence. This is in and of itself pertinent in this case, as they exist solely in reaction to Robert Spencer's stated claims, as he is a controversial critic of Islam. I added a single sentence referring to- not citing- two sites that routinely examine Spencer's claims and critique them. That is all that I say about them, nothing more. I don't endorse, quote, promote, validate, or in any other fashion use them as a source of information, so your insistence that I am using "non RS" sites in violation of WP:BLP policy simply doesn't apply, as I haven't used them as a source. I simply state that they exist, and they exist because Spencer has taken it upon himself to present information in a certain manner, with which they disagree, end of story. The underlying problem here is that the article is devoted to someone who makes their living primarily by self-publishing on the web, and others who disagree with those views respond in the same format. To host a biographical entry for someone primarily engaged in that blogging (not to mention engaged in producing what could also be construed as controversial "attack pages" upon various Muslim public figures, for example, Spencer's page devoted solely to disparaging Reza Aslan), but then disallow even a brief mention of the existence of others critical of that individual solely because they employ the same format, seems more than a little imbalanced in this case. This is not truly a citation which is predicated upon reliability as it the standard for a RS; it is merely a statement of fact relevant to the individual in question, as without him, they wouldn't exist. The same criteria would also apply to the related entry on the JihadWatch site itself. So please, quit accusing me of citing a "non RS" site in violation of WP:BLP, as that is not what I have done. Now, as a compromise, I would offer that perhaps these sites should be added to the JihadWatch entry, as it's not a BLP. As an aside, I would like to add that a cursory examination of my contributions will show that my "entire existence on WP" has hardly been solely "adding non RS websites critiquing a living person" as you implied. Also Jonathan, did I have anything to do with the edits you've referred to? I don't believe that I did, but you are more than welcome to show me otherwise...Jemiljan (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Vince Neil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While doing routine BLP checking, I found this unreferenced and incredible section alleging a sextape [3]. Given the unlikelihood of a production looking for consent, even if the underlying story is true, this version is probably libellous. I've removed it (obviously), but disturbingly it has been in the heavily-editied article since April 2009.

The article contains any other number of BLP violations, which I have removed [4] [5]. It is possible that some of these allegations are, in fact, true and that they might be replaced with referencing. It is also possible that stuff I've left in the article should also be removed.

I'd like some people to look over this. Is there anything else I've missed? Maybe someone will also be willing to reference and replace some of the stuff. Please also watchlist. This article is bad news.--Scott Mac 19:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I started to tackle some of it, but it truly is a mess. What I wanted to do was to remove ALL unsourced material (the article has been tagged for years), but ended up removing only a little. Deciding what to remove and what not to remove wasn't easy. Plus, I didn't finish looking at the rest of the article. Some of the article reads like a promotional piece (clothing lines, restaurants, etc.).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This report concern an edit war which has began between User talk:90.146.117.12 and me about Bruno Buchberger's work. It concerns not only the article Bruno Buchberger but also Gröbner basis, Wolfgang Gröbner, Buchberger's algorithm and Wu's method of characteristic set.

Since December 15, 2010, this user began to edit these articles in order to negate the sentence "It should, however, be noted that the theory of Gröbner bases for polynomial rings was in fact developed by Bruno Buchberger in 1965, who named them after his advisor: Wolfgang Gröbner" which appears in the first paragraph of Wolfgang Gröbner page. User 90.146.117.12 negates this assertion and pretends that Gröbner bases appeared (without their name) in a paper of Gröbner which is cited in his/her edits; this is wrong and therefore none third party source may be provided to support this negation.

Supposing good faith, I have tried to explain to him (in mine and his/her user page) that he/she is wrong from a mathematical point of view, and that even if his/her thesis were true, his/her edits break several WP policies, especially wp:libel as these edits charge implicitly Bruno Buchberger of plagiarism.

I have reverted all these controversial edits, indicating the reason of reversion in the edit summary, but User talk:90.146.117.12 reverts my reverts, the last time today, January 8, 2011, on Gröbner basis page.

As I revert systematically these defamatory edits, I am afraid to be concerned by the rule wp:3R.

D.Lazard (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the edits qualify as libel, but they do seem to be based on an interpretation of a primary source rather than a secondary source. The only secondary source that I'm aware of is Abramson, who addresses the same primary source (Gröbner's "Uber die Eliminationstheorie") but still ascribes the invention of the Gröbner basis to Buchberger. Given our preference for secondary over primary sources, I'd go with Abramson over the IP's interpretation of Gröbner. Unless the IP has a secondary source that contradicts Abramson, or my reading is incorrect. - Bilby (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Another secondary source is "Hoon Hong, Deepak Kapur, Peter Paule , Franz Winkler et al., Foreword: Bruno Buchberger — A life devoted to symbolic computation, Journal of Symbolic Computation 41 (2006) 255–258" (Note that Hoon Hong is editor-in-chief of this journal, which is the best journal of the domain, and that the other authors are well known specialists of the domain), in which it is written

"Bruno decided to study mathematics at the University of Innsbruck, where he finished his thesis in 1965 on Ein Algorithmus zum Auffinden der Basiselemente des Restklassenringes nach einem nulldimensionalen Polynomidea (An algorithm for finding the basis elements of the residue class ring of a zero-dimensional polynomial ideal) under the advisorship of Wolfgang Groebner. This was the birth of the theory of Groebner bases!"

Note also that IP's thesis is based on a confusion between the basis of the residue class ring, which is effectively considered in Gröbner paper, and the Gröbner basis, which is a different object which allows to compute the former.

D.Lazard (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Abramson seems to be making a distinction along similar lines, although not quite so neatly put. :) I've watchlisted the articles and will help where I can. - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Magic Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Repeated pattern of HIV related vandalism on this page over the last few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.147.235 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - added to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody really ought to watch this better, it stayed like this for over an hour. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mila Kunis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:BLPCAT says: "Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."

I removed Jewish categories from the Kunis article because even assuming she has sufficinetly self-identified as Jewish, her Jewishness is not relevant to her notability. Another editor reinstated the categories saying that being Jewish is not just a "religion" but also an ethnicity, and so this section of BLPCAT doesn't apply. I have trouble with that, not the concept of Jewish and ethnicity per se, but with the application of the policy. Are we going to make exceptions for religions in which someone may identify with the religion in certain ways but not with the religious aspects? Sounds like a slippery slope to me. Even assuming we wanted to make that distinction, how would we decide that a particular article subject self-identifies with the "ethnic" aspect but not with the religious aspect? WP:EGRS doesn't seem to help on this issue, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, for a start, nothing in the article indicates she has self-identified as Jewish. She was born "to a Jewish family". Now, I realise many might say that makes her Jewish. Fine. But that's not the only possible definition of Jewish, and so it is POV to caregorise here as a Jew, when the article lacks self-identification.--Scott Mac 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but let's assume that stuff could be put in the article where she self-identifies. If you look at the Talk page, you'll see that the editor has identified a couple of references: here and here. They're not the best references as one is pretty old, and the other is perfunctory. However, for me, whether BLPCAT even applies is the more difficult issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pretty old"? Speaking of slippery slopes, there's one if your goal is to waste the time of good editors arguing over something that is as incredibly self-apparent as categorizing a fully Jewish actress who has described herself as "Jewish" as a "Jewish actor". The fact is, the word "Jewish" refers to an ethnicity, which is why the article Jews is categorized under category:Ethnic groups in the Middle East and category:Semitic peoples (and the article also describes Jews as a "nation"!). For the record, Kunis also described herself as "Jewish" on the Craig Ferguson Show (at about 5:11 here), and I'm sure there are others. But again, I absolutely can not understand the fact that we're even having this conversation right now. This is so, so obvious, and all of us could be doing better things than repeating that obvious. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You certainly could be doing better things than being so full of yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

How do her beliefs apply to her notable activities or public life? Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If the reason for the category is her ethnicity, then the question should be how is this applicable, though the same point applies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about ethnicity, not "belief". Ethnicity is not covered by BLPcat (in fact, a whole long discussion on whether to include ethnicity in BLPcat just this December had not resulted in its addition). Ethnicity is covered by WP:V and WP:NOR. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is surrealistic. It seems that everybody has forgotten that millions of Jewish were killed 70 years ago simply because they were Jewish. For most of them this was a religion, but for many others, especially in France, this was not their religion (either they had changed of religion, as the present Pope, or they had no religion at all), nor a nation (as they were French for many generations), nor an ethnicity (they do not belong to any community). To be Jewish was only their name and the religion of their ancestors. And their were horribly killed for that, even the babies.

This is the reason why, in France, it is forbidden to categorize people by their religion as well as by their ethnicity.

My opinion is that to not apply WP:BLPCAT to ethnicity (or to any other meaning of "Jewish") would be a shame.

D.Lazard (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree this discussion is surreal, but not for the important points you raise, but for the hypertechnical Wikipedia-like points addressed and not addressed by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Just for the sake of argument, assuming BLPCAT doesn't apply to ethnicity, how do we determine that Kunis's self-identification as Jewish is ethnic, religious, or both? And how would we determine that for any other BLP? After all, if her self-identification is religious, or even ethnic and religious, then BLPCAT applies. The only way I can think of to resolve that issue is through reliable sources (e.g., "I believe in a Jewish god" or "I don't believe in a Jewish god"), and absent any reliable sources one way or the other, we must exercise caution with BLP articles and apply BLPCAT to Jewish categories.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you apply BLPcat to Jewish categories, you must also apply them to Italian, Irish, and Welsh categories. Or how about "Ukrainian women", a category she's in? Again, why are we having this discussion? Why? It makes no logical sense not to categorize a self-identified Jewish actress in the category "Jewish actors". If we don't, then this category shouldn't exist (and maybe it shouldn't, but that's a different issue). WP:V and WP:NOR exist, and they are excellent policies. What more do you want? What I find impossible to understand is why anyone would want to argue over something that is so, so, so patently obvious, sourced, referenced, and fitting with every one of Wikipedia's core policies. I think the Mila Kunis article has been categorized under "Jewish actors" for about five years now, without a single person attempting to remove it from it. That doesn't make its inclusion right, but don't you think there's a reason you're the only first person to try? (BTW, as to your statement about knowing whether the "self-identification is religious, or even ethnic and religious" - ethnicity categories do not require self-identification, because they're not covered by BLPcat. According to reliable sources, Kunis is Jewish, which fits in with the excellent criteria at WP:V and WP:NOR). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is clearly vagueness - the whole Jewish labeling and cats need looking at - you have no idea if it is a religious person or not or if they have two Jewish (religious or ethnic) parents or if he has only one distant relative that was Jewish (religious or not unknown) or if hes not genetically Jewish at all but the person has converted from another faith. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your entire argument assumes that Jewish can only be ethnic and never religious, a notion that might offend a considerable number of religious Jews. Otherwise, you wouldn't compare it to Italian, etc. Your argument also falls apart for the same reason. And if you see no justification for this discussion, then, by all means, don't participate.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not only ethnic but that's what the normal definition of the word refers to (notice how Kunis says her parents told her "you are Jewish in your blood"). That's why the article Jews refers to the term as describing a "nation" (!). The most religious of Jews especially, by the way, believe that the word "Jew" refers to a nation, an ethnicity, a group of people. That is why Orthodox Judaism defines "who is a Jew" by matrilineal ethnic descent. Someone who believes everything that Jews believe but does not come from a matrilineal Jewish line of descent would not be considered Jewish by the most religious of Jews (Orthodox Jews don't recognize conversion to Judaism unless they're Orthodox conversions). The whole principle of Judaism is that the Jews are a people, not just a group who hold the same religious beliefs (and such religious beliefs wouldn't make someone "Jewish" according to the strictest definitions). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no "normal" definition of Jewish. You're just picking the one you like. If you do even a cursory search on the web, you'll find that mostly Jewish is defined as either cultural or religious. Here's just one example, but many other wesbites say similar things, as do dictionaries. Nor do I see how the concept of matrilineal descent has anything to do with whether Jewish is religious or ethnic or both. See here for more information about the history of matrilineal descent.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its all so vague and cats are not supposed to be vague, it defeats the object of them. Off2riorob (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, it's an ethnicity. That can't be changed. I don't see how the fact that it's also a religion has any effect on this, since we're not talking about the category Converts to Judaism. I presume the "normal" definition of Jewish is the one given at the top of the article Jews ("a nation and ethnoreligious group". BLPcat does not apply to nations, nor does it apply to ethnoreligious groups.) Category:Jewish actors is categorized under Category:Actors by ethnicity. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Category:Jewish actors is also categorized under Category:Jews by occupation which is categorized under Category:People by religion and occupation and under Category:Jews, the last of which has the following caveat: "See also the policy at WP:BLPCAT regarding categorization by religion or sexual orientation." As for BLPCAT, if you can find language in it that it does not apply to "ethnoreligious" groups, that would be helpful for you. As it is, it applies to religious groups, and as most concede, Jews can be considered a religious group.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do I need to find language in it that says it doesn't apply to ethnoreligious groups? No language stating that it does is there. All it says is "religious beliefs", not "membership in an ethnoreligious group". That's about it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As I already stated, BLPCAT says it applies to religious groups and even calling Jews an ethnoreligious group makes them both a religious and an ethnic group. But I think that at least you and I are going in circles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bb, you're only suggesting the removal of "Jewish actors"... right? Not all Jewish categories? Bulldog123 02:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bb removed all "Jewish" categories this morning. It was me who specifically started mentioning "Jewish actors", but really, I'm talking about all the categories. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

AHW is correct. I removed all the Jewish categories except the descent category (as I recall). The same reasoning applies to all of the ones that categorize her as Jewish (American, Ukrainian, actor, etc). I think AHW would agree that there's no difference for the purpose of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You said it. It applies to "religious groups". But a religious group is not the same thing as an "ethnoreligious group". That's why we have a separate article to define an ethnoreligious group. These are two differente terms with two different meanings. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The religion/culture/ethnicity multivalence of the term "Jewish" is a long-standing problem. A possible solution might be to make "Jew/Jewish" categories require self-ID per WP:BLPCAT, and to use "Jewish descent" categories in all other cases where only third-party RS descriptions are available, and no Jewish self-ID can be sourced. --JN466 23:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a constructive suggestion, but I doubt any consensus will be reached to adopt it. By the way, BLPCAT requires self-ID and notability relevance.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is why BLPcat is problematic. Anything that has inspired a discussion so completely without logical or useful (or practical) purpose, and has wasted the time of so many good editors (I exclude myself), is obviously not a good policy (and that's why I'm glad BLPcat wasn't extended to ethnicity). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus to require self-identificaiton in order to categorize people as Jewish. Many people would find that problematic, and particularly problematic to do so on grounds of holding religion up to be the paramount issue of Jewishness. What BLPCAT may or may not say on the subject is not going to answer the question - if BLPCAT did in fact prohibit this category then we would have to say that it does not reflect a consensus position. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

But Wikidemon, the only reason we're having this discussion is because an editor is taking a minor provision in BLpcat and applying it to the word "Jewish", which is unquestionably an ethnic group and a "people", something not convered in BLPcat. If BLPcat did not exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There is literally no other debate or point of contention here. We are talking about someone, Mila Kunis, who was born to two Jewish parents, has publically and in print and especially on national television self-identified herself as Jewish, and of whose Jewish status there is no contention, either in the press, nor among Wikipedia editors. The categorization of her as a "Jewish actress", say, passes every policy in the book - like WP:V and WP:NOR. So, while I agree with you that "There's no consensus to require self-identificaiton in order to categorize people as Jewish" - that's not even the issue here. There is no issue here except policy wonking something that isn't even covered by the policy. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

cActually, Category:Jewish actors should be nominated for deletion anyway. It pretty much falls under WP:OCAT directly and I doubt we'd get many people disagreeing with that unless they're being disingenuous. There is no proof any of these actor's Jewishness affect their acting or life as actors, and Mila Kunis is really a perfect example of that. For most people, her being Jewish or of Jewish descent is just pure trivia and the category "American Jews" or "Americans of Jewish descent" or "Americans of Ukrainian-Jewish descent" is more than enough to report that. This whole emphasis on tossing people into Jewish categories is really just fancruftism purported by places like Jweekly, JVibe, etc...etc.... It's more rampant for Jewish BLPS than other BLPs because few places give a shit if an actor is half-Portuguese or not... or at least they don't report it with as much zest. One of the reasons we don't see Category:Portuguese-American actors under Tom Hanks. Bulldog123 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Portuguese-American actors doesn't exist, and if it did, I'm sure Hanks would be in it. The point here is not whether or not the category should exist (I don't usually participate in those, although I did vote delete on a couple of such lists). The point is since the category does exist, what possible reason would there be for Kunis not to be in it, since she obviously and verifiably satisfies both criteria for entry ("Jewish" and "actor"). The discussion isn't just about this category, though, it's also about "American Jews" and "Ukrainian Jews" in her case. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Except the criteria is not "both Jewish and actor"... it's "Jewish actor." Per WP:OCAT, Jewish actor needs to be established as a cultural phenomenon (or topic)... [where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. ]... and in order to be included in that category, she needs to be verified as part of that cultural phenomenon. You're thinking of the category, Category:People who are Jewish and actors. Doesn't exist. Thank God. Bulldog123 01:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"OCAT" refers to which categories should or should not exist, not which people should be in those categories. "People who are Jewish and actors" is the same as "Jewish actors". Yes, yes, we can argue endlessly that it's not or it is, but obviously, it's a matter of irrelevant semantics that I hope common sense can overcome. And that's not the topic of this incomprehensible discussion anyway. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know where the disagreement is here. By no means is it a matter of irrelevant semantics. If "Jewish actors" is being used as a category for "People who are Jewish and who are actors" than it fails WP:OCAT standards for category creation... and has a strong reason to be deleted (saving a lot of headaches from incomprehensible discussions like this one). "People who are Jewish and who are actors" is no more notable than "People who are Mormon and who are actors" or "People who are Pennsylvania Dutch and who are actors." (I included the second example to save some numbnuts from responding to this comment with, "BuT ItS an EtHNICITY too, BULdOg!") In order for "Jewish actors" to be a legitimate category it needs to relate to the actual cultural topic of "Jewish actors" (if one actually exists... which is by itself ambiguous... as discussed in the AfD for the list). Since we now admit it doesn't serve as that type of category, this is tier 1 for deletion. That being said, why categories like "People of Ukrainian-Jewish descent" were removed doesn't make any sense. Off topic, Category:Ukrainian women is a weird category. Bulldog123 05:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

An excellent point. I was thinking about this as I was watching Serious Man on television earlier (speaking of Jewish). Very few actors will be notable because of their religion, so categories that mix the two would, based on BLPCAT, almost never be used. Perhaps an exception would be a Jewish actor who was well-known for playing in Yiddish theatre. As for the descent category, as I already said, I did not remove that category. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not being disingenuous here, but one's ethnicity is not a matter of trivia. In the case of Jewishness, that battle has been fought and lost. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not being disingenuous here, but one's ethnicity is not a matter of trivia ...I hope that's not a response to my remarks... otherwise I'd have to assume you didn't read them at all, skipping over sentences like: "For most people, her being Jewish or of Jewish descent is just pure trivia and the category "American Jews" or "Americans of Jewish descent" or "Americans of Ukrainian-Jewish descent" is more than enough to report that." Not all trivia is totally unencyclopedic trivia, but it's still trivia. Bulldog123 01:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Should we have a Wikipedia:Neutrality in Judaism quasiproject/workgroup to go through all Jewish-designation categories and remove them from articles without adequate sources, and also to nominate for deletion Jewish people of uncertain notability? That's the solution being used for another relgious groups and the community seems to approve. Jayen466, would you like to initiate it?   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The article should say Mila Kunis is Jewish, as that is what sources say. She states here that she is Jewish: "Well I was in Russia. I wasn't allowed to be religious. My whole family was in the holocaust. My grandparents passed and not many survived. After the holocaust in Russia you were not allowed to be religious. So my parents raised me to know I was Jewish. You know who you are inside. You don't need to tell the whole world. You believe what you believe and that's what's important. And that's how I was raised. My family was like 'you are Jewish in your blood'. We can celebrate Yom Kippur and Hannukah but not by the book. We do it to our own extent. Because being in Russia...Bar Mitzvahs weren't held. When I was in school you would still see anti-Semitic signs. One of my friends who grew up in Russia, she was in second grade. And she came home one day crying. Her mother asked why she was crying and she said on the back of her seat there was a swastika. Now this is a country that obviously does not want you. So my parents raised me Jewish as much as they could and came to America. I love my religion. I think it's a beautiful religion but I took parts of it that I want for myself. I don't need to go to temple. I will, but I don't need to." That she was Jewish under conditions that were adverse to that identity should be seen as accentuating that identity. Bus stop (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It does say she's Jewish.... in like 6 different places in the article... Honestly, what do you want? Mila Kunis (she's Jewish, you know). Bulldog123 05:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bulldog123—I'm referring to the body of the article—not just to Categories. Sorry if I wasn't clear. At present it says in the body of the article, "Kunis was born in Chernivtsi, in the Ukrainian SSR of the Soviet Union, to a Jewish family." I would like to change that to read something like, "Kunis is Jewish, born in Chernivtsi, in the Ukrainian SSR of the Soviet Union." Would you support that change? The above is the only instance of mention of Jewishness in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the Kunis Talk page, I don't support such a change. Inserting that as the opening sentence in the section called "Early life" is jarring. It lacks context, foundation, or relevance. As I also said, if you want to address her feelings about Judaism or "being Jewish" and you think it's relevant to the article (and I'm not agreeing it is), then try putting it somewhere else in the article. One possibility is in the "Personal life" section. But even there, just saying "Kunis is Jewish" would be inappropriate for similar reasons. Just because something is a fact and can be sourced doesn't in and of itself mean it belongs in an article. There has to be a connection to something.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23—you say, "Just because something is a fact and can be sourced doesn't in and of itself mean it belongs in an article. There has to be a connection to something." I agree. But stating that Kunis is Jewish is appropriate for a biography of her. "Jewish" is an attribute of her identity and warrants mention. Sources indicate she is Jewish. Yes, you can expand upon that if you wish, but why have you removed it? In this source we have further confirmation that Kunis is Jewish: Mila’s family moved to escape Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union. The article at present says that she was born to a Jewish family. But more than that is warranted by sources. The article should say that she is Jewish, and I think that should be stated directly. Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with what Bus stop says above. And btw, I personally find the suggestion that it is "jarring" to reflect that she is Jewish unconvincing.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert C. Richardson III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wiki editors,

Over the past 4 years I have updated and maintained my father's original USAF official biography wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Richardson_III . I have struggled to maintain the documented historical perspective of this wiki against the unsubstantiated political/personal opinions of other contributors (many anonymous) . At issue is my father's role as a key player in a controversial event during WWII called the Laconia Affair. The affair involved his actions/decisions after the torpedoing of a British liner in the South Atlantic. Depending on one's political and national perspective, some of today's contributors consider my father's actions a war crime, even though he was never accused, then or subsequently, of any war crime, nor does any of the numerous histories even hint that there was a war crime. (Read the article's discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_C._Richardson_III). As I say in the discussion page, I added the Laconia section for its lessons on the fog of war, miscommunications, and how tactical decisions in the heat of battle can have subsequent strategic impact, unbeknownest at the time. I even asked that the article be reviewed by the wiki reviewers.

My father recently died and I am using his wiki as an obit reference. As you can tell he was a renowned individual that in all likelihood will have obituaries published in the Washington Post, WSJ, and NYT. I have done my best to footnote and reference all the article's postings, especially the controversial passages. I work to police the wiki from politically motivated and/or personal opinion edits. While I am prepared to continue to police these drive by opinion edits, I am concerned that they will slandering him as he move on to the next world.

I would ask you to please place a temporary freeze of about 3 months on edits to his wiki until after my father is interned at West Point. Robert C Richardson IV, Col USAFR (ret) Son of RCR III Wiki ID - Crossrich (removed e-mail address) 173.67.25.165 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Condolences about your father and thank you for your contributions to wikipedia. At wikipedia one of the basic principles is that the wiki is the place anyone can edit, it would be extremely unusual to lock an article unless it was suffering current and repeated vandalism. I am sure that your comment here some active editors will as I am doing , add it to their watchlists and keep their eye on it for you, if is suffers vandalism I will request some level of protection if and when necessary. Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

One other point, and I don't mean to be heartless in your time of grief, but it is not his "original USAF official biography wiki" - it is an article about your father in an encyclopedia that, subject editing within the rules, anyone can edit - one of the key principles of Wikipedia. Contributions here, can, and will, be edited by other users and will only be "protected" from editing in extreme circumstances such as continuing vandalism.  – ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to ip. My condolences also, if you are his son, since I personally don't believe/trust a dam thing on the internet, but that is me. As pointed out, I doubt this page will be locked, but hopefully it will be watched and treated "fairly". Not to comment to much, but unfortuately, this project is used all the time to promote viewpoints ect and can and is a real ceespool, BUT, like the Grateful Dead, it might not be the best at what it does, but it is the only one who does what it does. Anyways, good luck and maybe consider using an account. --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Death of Philip Gale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quite obviously, this isn't a BLP. But considering this is a 19 year old who committed suicide 10 years ago, and that he'll have a family, it raises similar issues.

The article was a Scientology COATRACK and is currently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Philip Gale, but that's not the reason I'm coming here. There have been attempts by established editors to add details that (although sourced) seem intrusive, unnecessary and justy plain horrible: fine for the voyeurism of low-grade disposable newspapers but not for a serious permanent reference work like an encyclopaedia.

See here, and also the details in the current Death of Philip Gale#Death section. I'm maybe too close to this - and getting into a heated argument with Cyclopedia, so some more eyes would be good. This has badlydrawnjeff overtones.--Scott Mac 19:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Since I've been called into question, I want to emphasize I didn't lift a finger to attempt to re-introduce this information after Scott reverted me. I have no intention of entering an edit war for that. I didn't even raise the issue on the talk page or call for further discussion elsewhere. That he got into a heated argument is entirely his own responsibility, since it was him that accused me of "bordering on trolling" out of the blue with a not-quite-civil tone, but even there I left the last word to him. --Cyclopia^talk 01:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not apply to dead people. It does apply to survivors, but that doesn't seem to be the basis for this posting.   Will Beback  talk  02:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that even if it was a BLP, a case for the insertion of the material could be made on the basis of WP:WELLKNOWN. But this is theory: fact is, it isn't a BLP (subject is long dead), so I don't get the point of the posting either. It seems to me personally that Scott is tainting what is essentially a banal content dispute with supposedly ethical tones that have are however not grounded in policy or guidelines or any other kind of generic community consensus -all laced with threats and incivil wording on my talk page. I would hope admins knew better. However further comments on the issue would be welcome, this I agree. --Cyclopia^talk 12:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the article is in violation of the items noted below:

Subjects notable only for one event Policy shortcut: WP:BLP1E Further information: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply 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, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.[5]

Misuse of primary sources Main page: WP:PRIMARY Shortcut: WP:BLPPRIMARY Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasis.prefect (talk • contribs) 05:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

AFD is this way ---->> WP:AFD. – ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• - nominated for discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jakiw Palij (2nd nomination) - Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeated creations of biographies of living persons, most of which remain unreferenced and/or poorly sourced. See his talkpage for the list of articles and further details. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Anthony has been here since April 2010 and has 215 edits (that have not been deleted) and he has never made a single edit to either his own talkpage or any other talkpage. I left the user a note regarding this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Requested move

Victor Pinchuk — Victor Pinchuk's name is spelled with a "c" on all his official web-sites, including: www.pinchukfund.org, www.worldwidestudies.org

This is not the correct place where to put the requested move tag -you ought to do that on the article/its talk page (see the template documentation). --Cyclopia^talk 17:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but its a simple request that we can easily do, or at the least a internal link to the correct location? Off2riorob (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Victor Pinchuk - Off2riorob (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Singleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a lot of information that is either false or libellous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.94.68 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks a lot of vandal additions from the seventh, (Ireverted back to the last decent version)...and the edits were not noticed at all, creating a big attacking type mess, Pending protection would have stopped it all from entering the article. IMO he doesn't need his own BLP article and I am thinking merge to the most notable ABC_(band) saxophonist? and a redirect, little to merge, if you support my position feel free to make the bold edits. Perhaps he just needs improving, I have heard if you were in two notable ish band you get a gold pass to your own Wiki BLP - anyway I added the ABC tempplate - have a look if anyone is interested to develop it. Also if a passing admin is willing to protect it with pending protection that would at least stop such a situation happening again. For four days it sat like this, and that is not acceptable at all. Perhaps a bit of rev-del would be good for the death claims. Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Janelle Pierzina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Material sourced only from message boards posts has been repeatedly inserted into this article despite talk page discussion and edit summaries from administrators [6] [7] explaining this is a violation of BLP. BaldPete (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just picked this up. This is the most persistent IP I've seen for a long time, returning to make the same edit after a 6 month block. Anyway, I semi-protected the page indefinitely. CIreland (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to User:BaldPete for sticking with it and to User:Cireland for the protection - Off2riorob (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner and 'atheism'

Is it normal to report the religious affiliation of suspects of criminal investigations in Wikipedia articles? There is a debate at Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner#Atheist.3F as to whether the assertion that Loughner is an atheist should be included in the article (and also as category:American Atheists).

The source for this claim seems to originate with a Guardian article[8] , which to be appears not to meet the standards required by WP:BLPCAT, that religious affiliations should be publicly self-identified. There is also an article in the Telegraph [9] which suggests that Loughner may possibly instead have occult beliefs, again raising doubts about his 'atheism'.

In any case, WP:BLPCAT indicates that religious beliefs should only be referred to in BLP articles where this is relevant to the subjects' notability, and as yet there has been no evidence offered that Loughners beliefs (or lack thereof) have any such relevance. I'd appreciate advice on this issue, as the debate appears to be somewhat at a stalemate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• This article definitely needs to be watched by BLP-aware editors. Kelly ^hi! 02:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't have an overall view, but would point out that BLPCAT does not apply here, since the issue is not about applying a category tag. --FormerIP (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The CAT tag is in the article. In any case, it needs to be established the Loughners atheism is (a) properly sourced, and (b) relevant to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The CAT should definitely be removed then, but without prejudice to article content. Agree with (a) and (b). A question of looking at the source and on what basis the claim is made. If the source does not state it as known fact then it should not be included. --FormerIP (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There are now three news articles that say or quote others as saying he's an atheist. [10]. I'd say CBS/AP is a trustable source.--Protostan (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The one source that itself has a reference (in this case, an unquoted assertion by classmates/neighbors) that he is an atheist is the same Telegraph article that surmises he may be involved with the occult. The CBS and Guardian articles both just say that he is an atheist, without any sort of apparent basis or attribution. I cannot find any references other than the Telegraph article that anyone has stated that he is an atheist, and he has not himself in any known materials. My other issue is that the Views section starts off with "Loughner, an atheist," which to me would require an even higher burden of proof than is given, as it presents itself as certain fact. (E.g., I would assume a lower burden of proof for a statement like "Classmates described him as an atheist.") Flodded (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we just leave the article as it is for now and resume this in the morning? --Protostan (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. Misleading statements in Wikipedia BLPs should be corrected immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "in the morning" on the internet. --FormerIP (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I was writing to Flodded. --Protostan (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Protostan, it's obviously worse to have bad information than to have a lack of information, especially when it's questionable whether it's really all that relevant. I suggested a compromise change on the article talk page: 'How about we remove the ", an atheist," from the first sentence, and change "Classmates noted that Loughner was critical of religion." to read "Classmates said Loughner was an atheist and noted that he was critical of religion."', but there has been no reply to the suggestion. If you want to "leave this", then I would ask that you go along with this proposal until the matter is fully sorted out. Flodded (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

How about "both the associcated press and classmates have said Loughner was an atheist and critical of religion."? --Protostan (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. It's not encyclopedic to state that a newspaper has reported someone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof), unless we are commenting on the newspaper, or on the accuracy of the newspaper's report (which we are here, but not in the article obviously.) Flodded (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok so long as that's all you change on the atheism matter it sounds ok for the time being. --Protostan (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume AP are basing their assertions on the same sources as everyone else - the ex-classmates (they seem to be talking about Loughner as they knew him 3 years or so ago). You have still not said why you think this is relevant to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence the AP is getting this information from his friends of three years ago. --Protostan (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been changed along those lines now, so we have some progress. :) Flodded (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I point out that the object of me raising this issue here was to get some guidance on policy? This isn't the best place for negotiations to go on, especially if they only involve some of those involved in the debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe my de-indented statement below is reasonable as to a "reboot" to clarify what we need guidance on, and anyone with a differing viewpoint ought to reply to that statement and stay away from this over-indented jumble. (Of course, your original simple question "Is it normal to report the religious affiliation of suspects of criminal investigations in Wikipedia articles?" stands.) Flodded (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the facts need to be laid out more simply to get away from the clutter above. The matter, obviously, is whether or not Jared Loughner should be described as an atheist. There are three options: either describe him outright as is the current case ("Loughner, an atheist, [...]" at the beginning of the "Views" section in the article), note that other people have stated that he is an atheist, or not include the information at all unless it is better sourced.

The current information comes from three sources: The Guardian, which in an article titled "Gabrielle Giffords shooting: Jared Loughner may have been influenced by occult" states "[Classmates and neighbours] said he was an atheist" but without quoting anyone; from CBS, which describes him as "An ardent atheist" but without any sort of references or obvious rationale; and from The Guardian, which states that he "stood out as a vigorous atheist" again without references or rationale. He has NOT identified himself as an atheist in any known sources.

So, the question is, which of the three options is best supported by this currently available material? I think an outright description is absolutely not supported, and I lean away from the middle option of stating others describing him as an atheist, but I would leave that for more experienced editors to decide. Flodded (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody has provided evidence which meets the requirements of WP:BLPCAT regarding self-identification and evidence of relevance, I've now removed the category 'American Atheists' from the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This biographical article reads like bad sportswriting, a diatribe repeating the often-pressed opinion that Spec Richardson was a poor general manager for trading away Joe Morgan and John Mayberry.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a sports column by the local columnist-"sportswriter" trying to rehash the point that Spec Richardson traded away a lot of talent and regularly got the bad end of his trades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.231.208 (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the topic to comment on accuracy, but Richardson appears to be notable for making bad trades. However, the sourcing definitely needs tightening, and I would recommend removing anything salvageable to the talk page for discussion and reducing this article to a stub if sources aren't added. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree, and also the issue should be brought to the baseball project talk page so that other baseball specialists can look into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Trading away a future Hall-of-Famer is always one of those "seemed like a good idea at the time" kinds of things. In Bull Durham, Annie talks about the Reds trading Frank Robinson to the Orioles for Milt Pappas. And there's the genius with the Chicago Cubs who sent Lou Brock to Cardinals in exchange for an old pitcher. The all-time worst deal, though, has to be the Boston Red Sox selling Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees, a deal that would haunt the Red Sox for 86 years. All the more exasperating is that the Red Sox knew what they had, and they still let him get away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Gardner Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Paul Gardner Allen's bio on his wiki page indicates that he is a director of Charter Communication. However, he no longer is. This can be verified by looking at the Charter Communication Corporate Governance Page.[11]

Additionally, this can be verified using Bloomberg business week. [12]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.189.125 (talk • contribs)

• - Thanks for the nudge - Off2riorob (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Louis Zorich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Louis Zorich's ethnicity is continuously being changed from Croatian to Serbian. I have sourced the fact that he is Croatian, yet someone keeps changing it to Serbian without any citation whatsoever. I have also put this issue on the noticeboard in the past, and the editors have tried to put a stop. Yet after several weeks the person comes back and makes the change back to "Serbian" again. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grabovcan (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• - User is a dynamic Serbian IP comes and goes every few weeks, Wikipedia:Pending changes - level 1 would stop him and yet still allow unconfirmed IPs to contribute. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made the request for pending page protection. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Adams (golfer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is not a living person. He passed away in 1986. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewJFulker (talk • contribs) 00:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cat removed, reference for year of death added. --Cyclopia^talk 01:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In Illuminati#Modern_Illuminati, "Conspiracy theorists have claimed that many notable people were or are members of the Illuminati" is followed by the names of a number of notable people, mostly living, sourced to non-notable, non-reliable sources. It's contended in edit summaries and on the article's talk page that the "conspiracy theorists have claimed" preface renders both this claim about living people acceptable, and the use of non-notable, non-reliable sources acceptable. That sounds pretty questionable to me. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources for the examples cited, specifically footnote 10 and 11, don't meet our standards for reliability; notes 12 and 13 are what would be considered fringe. My recommendation is to remove the entire phrase "including Winston Churchill...Zbigniew Brzezinski". Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A nice issue -- should "conspiracy theorists" be given any weight at all in any BLP issues? My opinion is a sound "no." Collect (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the names and left a note on the talkpage informing them of this thread for discussion. There is also a bit of discussion on my talkpage here regarding the reliability of one of the sources that was re added. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind removing the names... but... the sources are reliable in the context of what is being said in the article. This is a statement about the beliefs of conspiracy theorists... citing those beliefs to the conspiracy theorists who hold them is a WP:ABOUTSELF situation. It is the difference between saying "Obama is a socialist" and "Person X believes Obama is a socialist"... the first is a statement about Obama. The second is a statement about Person X... and a source written by Person X, where they say this, is reliable for that second statement.

This is one of those topics where the opinion of Fringe theorists has to be discussed to cover the topic properly. In this case, the opinions of Fringe conspiracy theorists actually carry a lot of weight. I absolutely agree that these claims would have no place in the bio articles on Churchill, Bush, Obama, Brzezinski etc.... but in the context of an article about the Illuminai, they have a place. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually... I have to question whether WP:BLP applies here.... the article is not a BLP, as it is not about a living person... its about an organization. The section in question is (in part) about Fringe theories concerning this organization. Yes, the section mentioned listed a few living people (in passing)... but that is not the same as a BLP. Context again. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP applies to all content about living people and to all citations containing extreme comments about them , whether the content is disguised as a conspiracy theory or not. I see you have replaced the names as well as the citation again , recreating the exact first complaint. Especially related to extreme claims related to the names you replaced Obhsama and bush and you added this citeation which I removed and you again added - its full of BLP violations and not reliable and just not needed to cite such a simple content addition that

• - all presidents of the USA are accused to be in the Illuminati - http://poweredbychrist.homestead.com/files/bush/rituals.htm - Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I tend to agree with Blueboar. If we are to document what conspiracy theorists believe and if sources report on their beliefs, provided that such beliefs are clearly marked as such (fringe views by conspiracy theorists) I'd say that names can stay, if they're notable and recurring in the conspiracy theory. If you want to talk about birthers you have to explain it's about Barack Obama. A similar argument can apply here. --Cyclopia^talk 16:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you support the use of this citation to support this content ? Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, but not because of BLP issues, just more generally because it's unclear if it's a sensible primary source on the subject and for sure is not a secondary RS. I was referring to the general issue, but I agree sourcing is very problematic. --Cyclopia^talk 17:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its a primary that is full of extreme claims such as baby killing by notable people that Blueboar has again named. That link it a BLP violating vessel and we should not be propagating and supporting its use through publishing it here on wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not the point: if it was a proper primary source it would be OK (e.g.: if we're writing on a hypothetical conspiracy theory that thinks that Hollywood actors eat babies, a link to a primary source of them on their claims would be proper, provided it is used to source their wacky theories and only those). The point is if it's a proper primary source on the subject, like an official website of the conspiracy theorists. --Cyclopia^talk 18:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is being used as a primary source... and appropriately. When it comes to a statement as to the fact that someone makes a particular claim, the most reliable source is the book, document or website where they actually make the claim. I really think Off2 is stretching the concept of BLP. the policy is called "Biographies of Living People" after all... not "Mentions of Living People in articles about something else". Context context context. Sources and statements can be unacceptable in one situation and be acceptable in another. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, can you explain why that website is a reliable primary source? Is it an official website of the conspiracy theorists of some kind? (And yes, BLP policy covers also mentions of living people elsewhere)--Cyclopia^talk 18:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a conspiracy website that we could call "official" (it's not like conspiracy theorists join a club or something)... That website is a fairly typical conspiracy website and it contains the claims we say it contains. It was chosen as being representative of hundreds of other conspiracy websites that make the same or very similar claims. As for what makes it reliable... Every source is a reliable primary source for statements as to what is contained within that source. Its why we say that no source is ever 100% unreliable. For a statement that says X make certain claims... You can't get more reliable than X's website where he says it. Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We don't choose unreliable sources to write articles, and whenever possible, we use the best sources at our disposal. The sources you added back into the article do not meet our inclusion criteria, and your reason for adding them isn't supported. When we provide examples, we choose reliable sources to do so. For example, look at our article on David Icke. In the Illuminati article, Icke is considered a source for information about the "Modern Illuminati". In his biographical article, Icke claims that "..the Babylonian Brotherhood controls humanity, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie." This odd statement is sourced to journalist Jon Ronson in a reliable secondary source. And while Ronson depends on the primary source literature of Icke to make this observation, we do no have to depend on Wikipedia editors to do it for us. In the same way, we do not depend on Wikipedia editors to decide which personal websites should best represent an example, because we don't use them for that purpose. We rely on reliable authors to do it for us. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Viriditas is quite right. I'd personally accept an unambiguously relevant primary source (e.g. a well known conspirational book) but as such, it's just one website out of many. I understand the point you are making and I sympathize, Blueboar, but it's not good enough, regardless of the BLP. --Cyclopia^talk 21:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, context. The article under discussion is the Illuminati article... not the Icke bio article or even the reptilian conspiracy article. The simple fact is... lots and lots of conspiracy theorists have claimed that various prominent figures are members of the Illuminati. The most common target for these claims are US Presidents (the claim has been made about every President since FDR... Bush and Obama are only the most recent). The idea that the President is an Illuminati is a major component of the theory. We can down play it, but we can't ignore it. And since we must mention it, we need to cite sources that support our mention... and these sources do so. Now, I agree that we want the best sources possible... These were the best I could find... but if you can come up with better I have absolutely no problem with replacing yours for the ones I provide. All I am saying is that in the context of a WP:FRINGE article, any source that makes a claim is reliable for the statement that the claims are made. The sources provided are "good enough". Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, my only worry is that there is no indication that it is a "good enough" primary source. You said that it is a "fairly typical conspiracy website". This is your original research. You need a source which is clearly authoritative and representative of the conspiracists' thoughts, like a book they published. --Cyclopia^talk 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can find one, please use it. Until then, we will stay with websites. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. A non-reliable source is not a good substitute of a reliable one. --Cyclopia^talk 02:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, seems like consensus support is for removing this cite. Off2riorob (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem... just replace it with something better. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP does not just apply to biographical articles, it applies to articles like Illuminati as well per the very first sentence in BLP "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original). Additionally, the claims "Conspiracy theorists have claimed that many notable people were or are members of the Illuminati" and "The President of the United States is a common target for such claims" are both Blueboar's original research. A reliable source for those claims is needed. Linking to primary sources of no notability or reliability to support those two original claims is also original research, indiscriminate linking, and undue weight for fringe trivia. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This continues to be an issue diff. It is contended diff that it is not a BLP violation (and not OR) to state that questionable self-published sources are conspiracy theorists and that those questionable self-published sources commonly claim that Presidents of the United States (hereinafter POTUSes) are members of the Illuminati. Because the POTUSes are now not named (except in the pages linked to offsite), it's claimed that BLP no longer applies. However, this still involves using questionable self-published sources making claims about third parties, which is expressly prohibited, and thus the BLP issue remains. Worse, perhaps, this aspersion is now cast broadly across all forty-three POTUSes. This is not unlike going from "questionable self-published sources state that Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees members Jimmy Wales, Bishakha Datta, and Kat Walsh are [something defamatory]" to "questionable self-published sources state that Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees members are [something defamatory]." It's still a BLP either by virtue of making a number of individual BLP violations collectively or as WP:BLPGROUP, and it's still OR. The only way I can see for the OR and BLP issues to be resolved would be for RS to be added, RS that state in effect "conspiracy theorists claim that many notable people were or are members of the Illuminati, commonly targeting POTUSes" though there might remain problems with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Editor continues to claim that no OR has been done and that the websites linked to are RS. Should I be raising this at NOR/N and RS/N as well? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was recently shot. I've twice removed content from Sarah Palin referencing this story which states that Palin was a political opponent of Giffords', and had published a "target map" including her. The referenced map is here. Would appreciate opinions on inclusion of speculation that the shooter was somehow motivated by Palin, or even if that belongs in her biography. At this point it's all breaking news, but of course the partisan blogs are on fire with the story. Kelly ^hi! 21:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Are the mainstream media commenting on Palin's "target map"? If they are, it might be worth a brief mention. There has been a similar debate with the Julian Assange article, as to whether the numerous suggestions from quite well-known sources that he should be killed ought to be reported. The consensus was that if this was seen as significant in the media it merited inclusion, but we shouldn't over-emphasise it, or rely on primary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTNEWS, it's premature to include stuff like this. There's zero indication that the shooter even knew about Palin's opinion of the congresswoman, or even that the shooter was targeting the congresswoman as opposed to the other victims. Wikipedia editors have cherry-picked news reports for anything remotely negative about Palin, while omitting to add material from those reports to the Harvey Milk article (he's mentioned in the cited report) or to the Wikipedia articles about any of the other people Palin allegedly targeted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The killer's online messages and videos did not mentioned Sarah Palin but political experts did suggest the connection, along with Hollywood stars such as Jane Fonda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craighross (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is got NPOV issues as well because it makes speculitive implications both to the motives of Sarah Palin, and to the reasoning of the shooter. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Plain's people are likely to be regretting the map over the next week, but there's no way this is appropriate article content. --FormerIP (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see the argument against including it in Palin's article, but not against including it in the article on Gifford herself. It's mentioned by numerous major media outlets. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think such a speculation should be included prima facie, and in fact I don't think it has been. But I do think the mere connection between facts (being on the hit-list and being shot) is relevant and worth mentioning, because the News report it all over the world. Clearly, we would expect Sarah Palin to intend her as a political target. Arguably Sarah Palin is (or was, as of today) more notorious than Gabrielle Giffords. Just mentioning the connection isn't open speculation about the shooter's motives, and even if it is, it's not stated how much his motive was moved by a real distortion of what he perceived was Palin's message. Sarah Palin is not directly responsible for what happened, and if everybody has tools to understand what she really intended to say and what happened, I don't see why the coincidence noted by tens of major newsagents around the world should be deliberately shadowed. --Gibbzmann (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That it is mentioned in the sources doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the article. It should only be mentioned in the article if it increases the readers understanding of the subject of the article. Which I think it is more likely to do the opposite of. Prodego ^talk 22:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"It should only be mentioned in the article if it increases the readers understanding of the subject of the article". I can't follow you. Understand what? Easyness for the readers' intellectual peace of thought shouldn't be a substitute for facts. First come the facts, next comes the how to better explain them. We are not yet discussing how best to report them to make them understandable, just whether or not to report them. --Gibbzmann (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's totally relevant. I hope this important issue gets included. Politicians should know better how their images, actions and campaign affect the mind of some loons. Map is visible here --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's loony to jump to the conclusion that the shooter knew of the map.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's jumping to that conclusion. We're just following what reputable sources are reporting (or trying to, but it keeps getting blanked out). Even center-right sources such as the UK Daily Telegraph are noting it, so it's hardly a liberal plot. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

He didn't need to know the map, is the violent rhetoric and the misinformation what produces such kind of consequences. The map is just a sample of such rhetoric. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Violent rhetoric? Cite needed, please. Kelly ^hi! 22:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a 2010 piece at Huffington Post has some examples: Palin's map has gun sights, gun sights on retiring Democrats are red-colored (a bloody colour choice), "We'll aim for these races...", "This is just the first salvo in a fight ..." --EarthFurst (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Politicians use polemical/military-style language all the time. I remember Obama asking his supporters to get in opponents' faces. After statements like that, the other side tries to gin up outrage. This is routine stuff. Kelly ^hi! 01:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the shooter knew of the map. Are the mainstream media commenting on the map when they report on the shooting? If they are, then the map needs mentioning in the Gifford article. It isn't up to us to decide what to report based on whether we think the map was actually relevent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do we have to include everything the media says? It isn't up to us to report because we do not report. WP:NOTNEWS. We are writing an encyclopedia article, there are things news reporting does that we should not include, and one of those things is making speculative links. Prodego ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The speculation belongs in the article on PDS, not in any BLP. --Kenatipo (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Even the Huffington Post was honest enough to point out that "There is no evidence at this time that the shooting of Giffords was politically motivated, . . ." --Kenatipo (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should probably be cautious and not include somewhat knee-jerk speculation from news sources. There's nothing wrong with the article being stripped back to the confirmed facts (from multiple RS's), until things settled down. Some sources said at one point that she had died, but we did not include that in the article. That said, I don't think it's a huge issue as long as it begins "media sources have said...", and doesn't just say "Gifford was on the map...". Trebor (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Half the news articles I've read about the event have mentioned the Sarah Palin map. I'm frankly quite surprised by the omission in Wikipedia. Obviously we cannot (yet) link the map to the event, but it is worth pointing out the widespread speculation (in the news media at least) of the connection. 129.97.209.25 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Precisely. In the Giffords article I carefully worded the material as "Media sources noted..." We have no business making the connection ourselves. On the other hand we have no business hiding this from our readers if numerous high-end media outlets are mentioning it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the editors saying that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and it doesn't belong in the Sarah Palin article. I'll also add that it might be appropriate for the article on the shooting itself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't belong in the Palin article. It does belong in the Giffords article and in the article on the shooting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)

It does belong in the shooting article, and has been added several times. But of course editors who don't want it in can undo faster than it's being added.CardboardGuru (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

to quote anythinyouwant - it's premature to include stuff like this. There's zero indication that the shooter even knew about Palin's opinion of the congresswoman, or even that the shooter was targeting the congresswoman as opposed to the other victims. Media sourses noted doesn't mean its encyclopedic content or that it is connected to any reality to which the desired addition speculates - allow the dust to settle and see if it has legs at all - Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If mainstream sources consider it significant then it's probably worth mentioning. We can word it in a way that mentions the map (it's covered in multiple reports), but without claiming causation. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream sources report all sorts that are not encyclopedic - I don't support its inclusion and I don't see a way of adding it and not asserting causation - unless the dust settles and it is correct that the teaparty advertisement was his reason to do anything it should be kept out of our article as trivia - its like john says I am going to kill you Harry and then Harry dies of a heart attack a year later - and adding although it was unconnected to his death John said he was going to kill Harry last year. Unless it has any basis in fact then it should not be adding, wait and she. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Red herring. We're not asserting causation. We're simply following what numerous reliable sources are reporting. To argue otherwise—that we should substitute our own judgment for what the sources are doing—is not consistent with policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. If the speculation turns out to be silly or wrong, there will be no sense in including it. Best to wait until more solid information develops. The information I'm seeing floating around in the media makes it sound extremely unlikely the shooter is a conservative or a Palin fan. Kelly ^hi! 23:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no speculation going on. The sources are simply reporting that Giffords was on the list. As for WP:NOTNEWS, by that standard we wouldn't be reporting the shooting at all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The connection between the map and the shooting is indeed made worldwide (I've seen Italian newspapers citing it). In any case, let's wait. We'll see what coverage says that situation cools down. --Cyclopia^talk 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Any implication that Palin was responsible for this tragedy is simply against WP:BLP right on its face. The fact that some newspapers have a weaker view about living people does not abrogate WP policies. WP is not a tabloid, and tries to look at things from an encyclopedic perspective. I hope. Collect (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No. There is no BLP issue, as this is a reliable source engaging in news analysis. However, the weight and relevance to Palin's biography is unclear, and a decision on including it is premature. If Palin does things that are embarrassing to a living person - herself - and they are found worthy of note by the major sources, then we don't expunge them from the encyclopedia. If Palin's map is somehow tied to the murders (it likely will not be) then we would report that. If she is falsely accused, and that is a noteworthy event, we report that. If she is critiqued as being among those advocating the politics of hate, and that critique becomes biographically relevant, we report on that. Although it's not a slam dunk at this point, I think Palin's intemperate statements and the repeated controversies over them are a very significant part of her public persona and political career, which are important to her biography. Fifty years from now, how will biographers remember her? Likely they will mention that she said and did a lot of controversial things on the national stage that drew public ire. Whether they will mention this particular one or not is hard to say. Likely, she will receive quite a bit of condemnation for that map. But we don't know yet, or to what end. It's more a question of WP:RECENT than BLP. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Wikidemon. It's a matter of NPOV, UNDUE and RECENT more than BLP. In my opinion the best thing to do is to wait. --Cyclopia^talk 00:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I still can't see one good reason the true and widely reported fact should not be cited in the Gifford article. The arguments put forward in the case of the Sarah Palin page do not apply. Any person who would shoot a politician based on some provocative and to some obnoxious "target list" made by an adversary is obviously a very insane person. Therefore, anybody here who claims the news reports are somehow implicating Palin directly, somewhat willingly, in the shooting, must be in bad faith. This is NOT what the media are doing. The question here is rather one of analysis of facts, which is being done all over the world. Palin herself must have felt the same way, uneasy about such unofrtunate coincidence, given that the "incriminated" page seems to have been taken down by her staff in a matter of minutes after the incident, despite it having been there for months before, without action having been taken. Does anybody here claim that, by doing so, Sarah Palin is actually speculating about her own implication? Insane. The connection, or coincidence, is a matter of bare analysis, very much relevant to the articles about Gifford. --Gibbzmann (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The page wasn't taken down, it's still up. Kelly ^hi! 01:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, my mistake, or I've been misled (maybe it was down for a while, or maybe people couldn't find it). For a moment there, I also got confused about the title, thinking to myself that it must have at least changed in the meantime. Wrong again, the picture I had in my mind was actually the twit pointing to the FB page. Anyway, the rest of my comment somehow still stands. Gibbzmann (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What happened is that they pulled the "Take Back the 20" site that was the home of the "target" campaign, but not the corresponding material on Facebook. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

{WP:NOTNEWS]] has no bearing whatsoever about whether the Palin target map should be mentioned in the article about the shootings. All it could possibly be used for is to argue against an article on the shootings, which would certainly not be very effective as a basis for deletion. It is readily verifiable that she and others used gun related symbols and rhetoric in their ideological and political campaigns against some Representatives. A mention of the "target map" would not give undue weight given that sources such as the Voice of America, the New York Times, and news organizations worldwide have noted it in relation to the shootings. No WP:OR and no synthesis are required to include content from such mainstream news sources. It will not go away just because some regret it or think it might be embarrassing for some political figures. That is not the purpose of the WP:BLP policy. Mentioning it in the story, following the mainstream news sources, is appropriate and consistent with WP:BLP. Edison (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree for this to be in the article about the shootings or, if such article still doesn't exist, the article on Gifford. I just would personally like to wait a few hours still to check if something changes (like, who knows, the killer declaring he didn't know anything of the Palin map). --Cyclopia^talk 01:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The article on the shootings is 2011 Tucson shooting. Mainstream sources are paying significant attention to this, so it would be against the spirit of WP:NPOV to not mention it. With proper attribution, we should be ok mentioning this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What would be wrong with waiting to see what develops as being verifiable? Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

But the fact that the allegations are being made is verifiable already. (e.g. [13][14]) Whether the allegations are verified themselves is a separate topic, but they are being made. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The press has also made allegations that Palin had a boob job, that she's getting divorced, that she resigned as Governor because she was under FBI investigation, etc etc. It all turned out bogus. We don't include that stuff here either. Kelly ^hi! 02:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the article on Palin. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"The press has also made allegations that Palin ...". Are you arguing here that Giffords wasn't actually on Palin's "target" map? Gibbzmann (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Target map" is a POV term in and of itself, though it is standard American political rhetoric. See this example. The issue is whether Palin's map is at all relevant to this crime, and there's no evidence that it is. Kelly ^hi! 02:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"'The issue is whether Palin's map is at all relevant to this crime'". That's a better posed question. But a couple of message ago you just seemed to imply the media were inventing something that had not happened (Palin having singled-out Giffords as a beatable opponent, using a certain reported figurative speech). That's what I replied to. I'm fine you have changed perspective. Gibbzmann (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

News sources are talking about this at the moment because they have a big story they have to cover and few actual details. We are not a news organisation and there is no reason for us to copy them or to report anything and everything just because it is in an RS. There is no reason, yet, to suppose that this is a significant aspect to the overall story. If it turns out to be, then fine. But there's no way we can know that so soon after the event. --FormerIP (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The guy's not talking, so anything the news folks say at this point is guesswork and pointing out the unfortunate irony of using a literal target in their campaigning, which I suspect the GOP to distance itself from quickly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Plus. The fact that one half of the major media around the world are reporting that fact is worth mentioning. Again and again, I'll repeat until it exhaustion: A mention of a fact isn't speculation, nor necessarily implication. The media are not claiming the shooter was motivated by that campaign. It could be the read as a report of a dark coincidence, that's not our judgement to make. The media are also reporting about Gifford's position on abortion, on oil coompanies, on guns, and on and on. Are those ALL speculations and implications? Palin's opposition to her is just one other. Gibbzmann (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just not understanding the urgency for getting the speculation into these articles IMMEDIATELY. Making this allegation has the potential to cause harm to a living person (Palin) who is the subject of one of our biographies. If the speculation is substantiated and the guy acted because of Palin (highly unlikely from what I'm seeing so far), then fine, it would warrant inclusion. But if the incident is completely unrelated to anything Palin has said, then it doesn't belong. What's the problem with waiting a little while to see what verifiable information develops? Kelly ^hi! 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I too think the motivations of the shooter might very well lie elsewhere. As I also think the truth about such motivations will remain forever unkwown as a matter of certainity, whatever any investigation or trial will ever assess. By any means, this is not the truth we are assessing here and now. There is no harm to the living person that can be attributed to be caused by a WP article that notes an actual fact, furthermore an actual fact reported everywhere in the world. Giffords being on Palin's list of chief opponents to be (politically) beaten is a notable fact about Giffords, now that it's all over the news and given that Palin is famous world-wide, unlike Giffords until one day ago. I'd say the news belongs to the Giffords page, if you wish, rather than on the shooting article. This option should very well answer you fears. Gibbzmann (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if that information has been included in any of the articles of the 20 politicians on the list - though from what I recall, it was a remarkably successful political campaign, if I recall correctly I think 16 or 17 of those politicians were defeated at the polls. Although the campaign itself may be notable, any attempt to tie it to the shooting would be out of bounds, and it would have to be very carefully worded. Kelly ^hi! 03:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You have to be careful. Obviously the map's reference to Giffords is now far more notable than its reference to other people, so it's not true that if we have to include it in one place, we have to include it everywhere. I think in the context of the expanded 2011 Tucson Shooting article, including it phrased as "some media sources have noted that...." is not inappropriate. It would be reliably sourced, carefully worded, and it wouldn't be given undue weight. It would be much more inappropriate in the articles for Palin or Giffords herself. Trebor (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's determined that Palin's effort was notable, it should probably be included in United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 or subarticles thereof. Kelly ^hi! 03:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not in question whether the campaign was successful, or whether it had anything concrete to do with the alleged success (apparently no, according to yourself, given that you do not admit the campiagn itself as anything notable for WP). What's being said is that it has just become a major element in identifying Giffords' political and personal profile until she was shot in the head, because the media covered the story at length (while before that very little was said worlwide about such "Gabrielle Giffords"). Anybody in the world who gets his news as an independent person, especially if not American, is aware of the coincidence, anybody who does not use English-WP as the sole source. Gibbzmann (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The coverage has expanded to the point where we can no longer ignore this. We've now got CBS News,[15] the New York Times,[16] the Los Angeles Times,[17] the UK Daily Telegraph,[18] and a host of other major media outlets covering or even doing entire stories on the Giffords-Palin connection. It's going back in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Have they verified the shooting was tied to Palin's poltical campaign? Kelly ^hi! 03:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Nobody's asked the attacker what his motive was, yet. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is wp:nodeadline. Until reliable sources are reporting on facts, as opposed to breaking news speculation, we need to be very careful with biographies of living persons like Sarah Palin and Gabrielle Giffords (and whatever stays put at Jared Loughner). If we were simply serving as a newswire, former Governor Palin would be the mastermind, Congresswoman Giffords would no longer be with us, and Loughner would be a Tea Party activist. We have no clue about any of this at this point, because the media doesn't have a clue yet either. Speculation is not fit for a biography. jæs (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are now reporting widely on the speculation, and this makes the speculation notable in and of itself. We still report it as speculation, not as truth. The main issue here would seem to be making sure it has appropriate weight wherever it's included. Trebor (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There you go: "reporting widely on the speculation". That is exactly what it is, speculation, it has no basis in fact and if any article needs writing its on how the media make shit up and pontificate in the absence of real facts. John lilburne (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly removed this topic from 2011 Tucson shooting with the note to come discuss it here. I come here and find that consensus seems to be to put it in. What gives?--Banana (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus to include? How are you arriving at that? Kelly ^hi! 04:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Just grab a line & hang on. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How can a New York Times article about an event not be ok for an article about that event? The above discussion is about including it in BLP's. This discussion isn't relevant to the article I was editing.--Banana (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The BLP policy applies to all pages, not just biographies. Kelly ^hi! 04:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Please answer my question: How can a New York Times article about an event not be ok for an article about that event?--Banana (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC) comment deleted by another editor --Banana (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As I asked below, has the NYT verified the map was tied to the shootings? Kelly ^hi! 04:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No. The paragraph you removed from the article did not say the map was tied to the shootings. The new york times is reporting that people are criticizing the website as contributing to an intense political climate. Please answer my question.--Banana (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We can go ahead and say in the Palin article that she may have inspired the Arizona shooter, provided we also say that the choice of weapon was inspired by the politician who said: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," and say so in his article. Deal?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't cut quid-pro-quo deals. We make principled decisions based in policy. Or at least we're supposed to. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

An alternative deal: If we suppress this information from Palin's bio, because we aren't convinced that the criticism of her is well-founded, then we also remove from Wikipedia the unfounded criticisms of John Kerry that were publicized by the Smear Boat Veterans for Bush (now known as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth). Note that these unfounded allegations are mentioned in the main John Kerry bio and have a whole daughter article devoted to them. (Of course I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris that we don't do deals. My "proposal" is intended to highlight that we report publicly discussed matters that affect a politician's image even if the attacks on the politician are not meritorious.) JamesMLane t c 03:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone please stop political soapboxing. Kelly ^hi! 04:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Everyone means everyone, mmkay? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this aint somekinda Democratic/Republican, liberal/conservative thing. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait and see what Beck and Limbaugh have to say before drawing that conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not have an RFC and ban every US citizen from taking part - whatever their politics. Better still, why not ask Wikipedians from the Balkans to mediate this dispute - since they seem to find it easier to leave partisanship at the door than most people involved in this fracas.--Scott Mac 04:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's got that bad just yet. I find that many U.S. citizens are able to contribute to Wikipedia very positively, although perhaps not in all topic areas. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the extent, if any, to which Palin's "target" map and gun crosshairs actually contributed to this event, the possibility of a connection is being reported and discussed. Furthermore, Palin sees enough of a connection to have pulled the graphic.[19][20] (The software prevented me from adding a link to associatedcontent dot com, which is on the blacklist but which is still an indication of public discussion.) This level of attention makes it worth a passing mention in Public image of Sarah Palin, along the lines of "After the shooting of RepresentativeGabrielle Giffords, Palin was criticized by some for having used a campaign graphic with gunsight crosshairs to make the districts of Giffords and other legislators whom Palin targeted for defeat in the 2010 election." The incident is relevant to Palin's public image, even if some Wikipedia editors think that the effect is unfair to Palin. JamesMLane t c 03:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, if the criticism turns out to be anything other than blathering to fill dead air time while news outlets are waiting for facts on the story. But I doubt it lasts more than a few hours while the shooter's motives are investigated. News outlets always mention Palin when they want hits/viewers/readers. Kelly ^hi! 03:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris:How many sources don't make this connection? We need to look at this issue from a totality of the sources. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, so we can afford to wait to decide how to handle this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

This is a specious argument. We include lots of information that isn't explicitly mentioned in every source describing that topic. This issue has extensive coverage (sometimes whole stories) in numerous prestige media outlets. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the arguments against noting the worldwide press coverage of the target map and the shootings are specious. WP:NOTNEWS in no way implies that "We must wait." WP:NPOV prevents us from censoring Wikipedia to prevent embarrassment to any part of the US political spectrum, when manistream news sources worldwide are discussing the "target map" in relation to the shootings. Edison (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So have any of the RS's verified the map was tied to the shootings? Kelly ^hi! 04:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your purpose in asking this question yet again is what, exactly? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite simple, the mainstream media are reporting that links have been made. They have noted that Giffords had already criticised the Palin Website for the image with the crosshair on Giffords' seat (per NY Times article). They aren't saying the shooting is linked to Palin, but they are saying that the issue is being commented on. Not to report these comments is a breach of NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Which article are you wanting to include the information in? Kelly ^hi! 04:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely the 2011 Tucson shooting one. And given the level of mainstream media attention, it will merit at least a mention in the Palin article too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

But if the map or Palin is not tied to the shooting, why would we include it there? I haven't seen anyone put forward a single reliable source that has said that. The most any of those sources has done is mention Palin tangentially without tying her to the shooting. Kelly ^hi! 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, everyone uses those maps - even the Democratic Party. Kelly ^hi! 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This one is even more impressive. It's already been scrubbed and is only in Google cache now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"We're on Sarah Palin's 'targeted' list, but the thing is that the way she has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realise that there are consequences to that action." -- Giffords, as quoted by the BBC, in a link off their front news page http://news.bbc.co.uk/ right now. So yes, it's gone mainstream. Not just in the USA. And not in a small way. Can we try to keep it out of Wikipedia? Maybe. But for how long? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

By all indications the answer is "as long as possible." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding the information back in to the 2011 Tucson shooting article and then going to bed. I can't participate in a discussion with Kelly if she won't answer my questions.--Banana (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just done this. Kelly is not attempting to reach consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The relentless intransigence, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and misdirection from Kelly have made principled discussion impossible. Kelly, you win -- I'm bowing out of this. Life is too short. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the shooter is being described as left-wing [21] who has previously made death threats to others.[22] Truthsort (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes: "A classmate of the man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this morning describes him as "left wing" and a "pot head" in a series of posts on Twitter this afternoon". Is this supposed to be a reliable source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh - the person probably has more information than the NYT. But I'm not going to have a stroke over a brief mention of the NYT's opinion so long as it's clearly attributed as opinion. I imagine it will become irrelevant as further information develops. Kelly ^hi! 05:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd not think your imagination would count as a reliable source. Not that this is relevant anyway. The fact that the media are commenting on the connection being made now is just that -a fact - from reliable sources. Regardless of what happens later, it will still have happened. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh. What I'm trying to say is that, as real facts develop in the case and are reported, early unfounded speculation, especially if not grounded in any sort of fact, isn't going to have much weight in comparison. Kelly ^hi! 05:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, though there is a large if in there. I suspect that even if the events turn out to have no connection with anything Palin's team said or did, it is still going to have an effect on her future political career. This is all speculation though. For the moment, we can note that the issue has been raised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll see how things fall out. In the meantime, I do think it's important to monitor for weight and to avoid making any assertions not supported by extremely reliable sourcing that the killer was motivated by politics or Palin. Kelly ^hi! 05:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless the media have got it completely wrong, the alleged gunman's website etc seem to indicate a 'political' motive, though based on somewhat incoherent politics. I've just had to edit the Toucson Shooting article to remove a claim that the Telegraph was saying he is 'left wing' - they don't, his politics is all over the place. This wants watching too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, I don't see anyone in this thread suggesting that Wikipedia assert, on the current evidence, that the killer was motivated by politics or Palin. The serious issue is how we handle the widespread reporting that Palin produced a targeting graphic, using figurative gunsights to mark 20 Democratic enemies, one of whom has now been targeted by a liteal gunsight. As others have pointed out, this reporting is fact.

I see no reason to believe that unfounded speculation will turn out to have no weight if it's not grounded in facts. You may recall the unfounded speculation about Saddam Hussein's alleged WMD's? the Niger uranium forgeries, etc.? Colin Powell's speech to the UN? All this was quite unfounded, and Powell has at least admitted the same, but it doesn't change the impact that the media circus had in smoothing the path to war. If nothing else develops after this weekend, the Palin targeting graphic has still gotten enough attention to be worth one sentence in our voluminous coverage of Palin. See some additional MSM coverage at TMZ ([23]) and The Telegraph ([24]). If it has legs beyond the immediate hubbub, we can amplify that one sentence. JamesMLane t c 05:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll see how the coverage plays out. The Telegraph has also pointed out that the martial imagery is standard and that the Democratic Party uses it too. But we're straying away from the BLP aspects here. Kelly ^hi! 05:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Include it already jeez...--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As the editor who originally included this news on the Palin page I have restored it. There is no point saying "wait until ongoing discussion is resolved"; one side is petulantly shutting its ears. It's a matter of record that all the major news agencies have reported it. That we haven't reported it smacks of censorship and political prejudice. We are not establishing a causal connection between the image and the shooting, simply noting in a small paragraph that the connection has been made by others. Ericoides (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

At present her article says: "On January 8, 2011, Congressperson Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head outside a Safeway grocery store in northwest Tucson during her first "Congress on Your Corner" gathering of the year. Although no connection between the shooter and the "target map" has been established, media sources noted that Giffords was one of the U.S. Congresspersons whom Palin had placed on a political "target map" using images of gun sights.[275] After her office had been vandalised in March 2010 Congresswoman Giffords had said; "We're on Sarah Palin's 'targeted' list , but the thing is that the way she has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight. When people do that, they've got to realise that there are consequences." Following the shooting Palin offered 'sincere condolences'." NB, the passage, "Although no connection between the shooter and the "target map" has been established". The onus is on editors to show why this is NPOV ("Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources") before it is removed again. I don't think it takes a genius to see that when virtually all WP:RSs are reporting the "target map" story that for us to use it is NPOV. Ericoides (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The info about Palin's map is already included in Wikipedia, in the article about the shootings. Many editors (including me) think that's premature. But that's very different from edit-warring a large block of text about it into the main Palin article (as opposed to a sub-article). Please stop jamming it there before consensus is reached. The Palin articles are subject to probation, and you'd be flirting with a block even if that were not the case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the discussion though it is, I couldn't give a damn about being blocked. Second, the onus is on editors to show why it should be removed as it was inserted in accordance with WP:RS policies. As I've suggested above, WP:NPOV is a red herring; if anything, it strongly suggests that we should include it. Not reporting a story when ALL the RSs do so is obviously following some other agenda than NPOV... Ericoides (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If the target wasn't notable in the BLP yesterday then it isn't today just because she got attacked and shot, unless a clear connection as in cause and effect comes to light , if its in the Tuscon article that is at least not a BLP and perhaps the best place for the content. Off2riorob (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As Hegel said, "The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk." As with many other editors, I can't be bothered trying to argue with what is obviously a determined little cabal on here, one that hasn't even started to address the issues re NPOV and RS raised by many above, so I'll bow out too. Ericoides (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I could attack the people that are insisting on adding this partisan media trivia but I won't, please refrain from calling good faith editors demeaning expressions such as, little cabal, thanks. "The media picked up on it" doesn't make it encyclopedic or the kind of media titillation speculation that we should be adding to our articles about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Then please do as you recommend and refrain from using demeaning terms such as titillation for a story picked up by RSs, such as the Telegraph (a partisan organ of the Left indeed!), NYT, etc etc. Ericoides (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The level of press reporting these days has sunk so low that it matters not what side you think they represent, they are all trapped in propagating the same crap but we are not in that loop. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia with no allegiances to anything apart from our own editorial judgment in producing quality free educational content - this causal and effect speculation does not fit in the remit. Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, in that case your word partisan is quite the wrong term. Ericoides (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the partisanship would be more likely found in the desire of users to add such content and speculation. Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you wrote "partisan media trivia". As has been made abundantly clear above, the content that has been added is not itself speculation; we said, "Although no connection between the shooter and the "target map" has been established ...". We are reporting on what reliable sources have said, as is our remit. This has all been reverted time and time again, in contravention of WP:RS and WP:NPOV, hence people's frustration. Ericoides (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have added it three times now, the last one with that silly disclaimer - if you have to add a disclaimer you shouldn't be adding it at all, especially not repeatedly when you know there is clear opposition in discussion from multiple editors. Off2riorob (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take what you say very seriously from now on. Ericoides (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it that far, your kidding aren't you, I am picking up with a pinch of salt - no worries, as the article is under probation {I only just noticed) I won't be making another removal there. Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Giffods herself commented on the palin propaganda in 2010. what is discussed in the media is the influence propaganda has on political climate/level of discourse. Sayerslle (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If that was notable why wasn't it added before her death, if it wasn't notable b4 it isn't notable just because she has been shot unless you are now connecting or suggesting a connection between the two. Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

'why wasn't it added before her death..?' (Are you on top of this story ?) Palin's propaganda style has been discussed at length since the shooting, a spotlight on it since the shootings, a persons political propagandist style is part of their political biography. Slagging me off as partisan, while posing as NPOV yourself is disgusting to me. Sayerslle (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

at length really, look the partisan comment was not specifically directed at you so don't go getting yourself all disgusted about it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, really, you calling me a liar? I was listening to BBC 5 Live and it was discussed at length, speaking to arizona politicians, friends of Giffords, of course I was listening to just one radio station in Britain, and i read the BBC Mark Mardell, he quoted what Giffords said in 2010 about Palins campaign tactics and the climate she encourages. I think this should find a way into the Palin article in time, certainly if this event becomes a focus for further future discussion of campaign tactics and hate filled propaganda, Anyway, I'm off to get the Sunday paper, see what the Independent is saying. I wont get myself all disgusted about it, I'm used to POV on wikipedia and wolves in sheeps clothing. Sayerslle (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop with your aggressive tone, its not conducive to wanting to respond to your comments, thanks. 13:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This partisan situation in violation of NPOV leads to the amusing spectacle of Users holding up a small black book and demanding to include any and all absolute nonsense exclaiming loudly as to Mr Kings vision - I have a cite! Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that these shootings have anything to do with Sarah Palin, or anybody else for that matter, outside of the perp(s) themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Try telling that to the families of the victims. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely perplexed about comments here that point out that no material ties have been found between the shooting and the campaign. As so MANY have addressed, this is NOT what's at stake, nor it is what anybody wants to write-up in the WP articles. Even if it turns out that the shooter was in love with and obsessed by Gabrielle Giffords, and because of that took action, the question posed by the media would still stand exactly as of today. The point here would rather be whether it is wise or not (and one might conclude "yes it is") to use a certain figurative speech which, in a world where nuts are around, might become a sinister presage of real facts. If anything, it would induce the speaker to feel sorry afterward. The US have an amazing history of important public figures having been assasinated, it's not like "oh, I couldn't in my sane mind have figured that out as really happening to her". In a normal world, it's pretty obvious the press would analyze this situation during an event like this one, and invite reflection. What's not normal is that it's carefully cherry-picked-out in WP, from all other stories circulating regarding the same event. Please, refrain from arguing with BLP bogus, because that's clearly not applied to the shooter, and the shooter is "accused on WP" of having done much worse than what is noted (by the media sources) about Palin. --Gibbzmann (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Gibbzmann. I'll add that people should look at the title of this sub-thread. It's already clear that the discussion of Palin's gunsight map has been widespread enough to be worth mentioning in connection with her public image. The general principle is: If a public figure is widely criticized on the basis of a particular allegation, then Wikipedia can properly report the fact of the criticism, regardless of whether the factual foundation of the criticism is sound, unsound, or unclear. I noted that we follow this principle with regard to the criticism of Kerry's service in Vietnam, criticism that's disproved by official Navy records. We also report the theories that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster, that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, etc. (As to Clinton, note generally the second paragraph of Hillary Rodham Clinton#Whitewater and other investigations -- a passage in the main Clinton bio that doesn't mention her murdering Vince Foster but includes a grab-bag of other spurious charges.) The BLP policy, which by its terms applies to "contentious" material, would (at this juncture) bar a flat-out assertion that Palin was partly responsible for the shootings, but does not bar a factual report that she has been criticized, because those facts are not seriously contested.

The more serious issue is the weight to be accorded. On this basis I disagree with Ericoides about including it in the main Palin bio. That bio can't accommodate everything relevant to Palin. That's why we have more than 20 daughter articles about Palin. One sentence in one of those daughter articles is not undue weight. JamesMLane t c 16:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever has been included in other article is of little relevence as to this discussion - WP:otherstuffexists and the title of discussion headers threads has even less value. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Otherstuffexists has been used fairly here, with several examples, to point out consitsency. It does not apply here as a fallacious argumentation, nor is it the sole argument put forward to sustain the point. --Gibbzmann (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As for weight how about - In the immediate aftermath of the the sad shooting of Gabrielle Giffords the democrats used it as an opportunity for a partisan attack on Sarah Palin. Is that weighty enough? Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Limbaugh to tell his audience that the Democrats are somehow to blame for this shooting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies aren't all spelled out in detail. Some aspects of policy can be discerned by reviewing what we actually do. My examples show a community consensus that, when a bio subject is criticized, the fact of the criticism can be reported even if the criticism lacks merit. If you disagree, propose an amendment to WP:BLP, and if it's accepted then we'll remove all such information. As for the section head, I was pointing out that many people here are attacking a straw man. JamesMLane t c 19:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We've yet to hear what the attacker's motive was. So far, he's not co-operating with the authorities. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For the thousand-th time, mobody here is arguing we should guess and write what the attacker's motive actually was. Your comment, as many before, is out of topic. Plus, are you suggesting that if, for the sake of argument, it turns out he was motivated by the campaign, we should state as fact that Palin was responsible for what happened? Insane. No, we would be reporting some comments. What we are arguing about here is whether or not the ongoing media analysis should be included, irrespective of the motives (as it is in fact progressing irrespective of the motives). --Gibbzmann (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

He was quite badly shot as I heard, I don't imagine he is able to be interviewed yet, but when he does I imagine he will have no option but to co - operate - I saw a cite repudiating him having any connection to the republican party or teaparty groups at all. The Washington Post showed Internet postings under Loughner's name focused on communist and fascist anti-government publications, there are also reports that he was disturbed http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/09/Report-Arizona-shooter-was-disturbed/UPI-55291294589097/ Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The politicians generally try to distance themselves from these kinds of lunatics. It reminds me of the Tim McVeigh situation. Prior to that there had been a lot of talk about private, self-styled "militias". Once the product of that kind of thinking became reality, the "militias" scurried for cover. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the term "targeting" referring to political positions goes back well over a century, and has nothing to do with advocating violence against any incumbent. In 1948, according to the NYT, Truman "targeted" Congress. "Tempest in a teapot" does not show the magnitude of the irrelevance of stress on that word. Collect (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW it wasn't just the 'term' was it, wasn't there a graphic also. still, glad you're so sanguine about the 'tempest in a teapot' , after all the history of the 20th century proved just how reasonable human beings are - what harm's a little propaganda going to do Sayerslle (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A graphic like this one? Kelly ^hi! 21:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Call me stupid, but that looks like an archery target. You fire arrows at the target and, from what I know, straw or whatever they use on targets doesn't possess much in the way of feelings. Quite different from the crosshairs of a telescopic rifle, where you don't fire at the crosshairs, but at what's behind them. But I guess the average moose wouldn't know the difference. Ericoides (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

They look like bullseyes from a shooting range to me, while the symbols on Palin's map look like survey markers. Just shows how all this stuff is completely subjective and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It's manufactured political faux outrage. Kelly ^hi! 21:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I now see that Palin's aide has also compared the crosshairs to survey markers. Ericoides (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess I'll have to brush up on shooting ranges, although from memory I think such targets are in two colours, rather than the multicoloured archery target that you posted. Your survey marker comment is, I can safely say, hilarious. This is all, however, quite irrelevant. We aren't dealing with whether one is one and the other is the other; nor are we in the game of deciding what is or isn't real/faux outrage. We are in the business of reporting what reliable sources say. But apparently we aren't. Ericoides (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, you sure understand that the fact that someone else used similar imagery, as in the link you posted, doesn't make it a wise or unwise choice either for him nor for Sarah Palin, so your point is unconsequential here. Secondly, in addition to the observation about the type of target symbols used, one key observation in regard to the Palin's campaign has been that those symbols were associated with both the States and the names of the candidates. Targeting a State with an archery target isn't the same as targeting a State with a cross-hair with the name of a person associated to it just below. But as I have said, it's in any case irrelevant that someone else used it, because such an event does not contradict the thesis. --Gibbzmann (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, is it your view that "manufactured political faux outrage" is never appropriate for inclusion in any form in Wikipedia? In other words, once we editors, in our collective wisdom, conclude that a criticism of a public figure is ill-founded, and is advanced solely for political purposes, must we excise all mention of it from Wikipedia, including even the factual report that the criticism was made? Follow-up question: If that is your personal opinion, is it anything more than a personal opinion, i.e., is it set forth in or required by some policy or guideline that you can link to and quote from? JamesMLane t c 04:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly I've never said anything like that. The Palin article contains mention of these media "controversies" that occasionally crop up. Consensus has typically been to mention them, if determined notable, in Public image of Sarah Palin, then to summarize them with appropriate weight in the main article. I imagine they use a similar approach at Barack Obama since the article/subarticle structure was modeled on that one, IIRC. Kelly ^hi! 04:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Here's the coverage on the CBS News website: [25]. In light of the numerous citations to the mass media that have been provided in this thread, can you at this stage go along with mentioning this controversy -- or "controversy" if you insist on the scare quotes -- with the sentence I suggested at the top of this sub-thread? JamesMLane t c 08:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it was like that anyhow it was more like a rifle gun sight. I've never had a gun so I dont really have the vocab. I know that hitler didn't support the socialists in the spanish civil war though kelly, however Socialist and left wing radical you think he was,omg, I think the nazis bombed guernica, and fought for franco, who was anti-socialist Sayerslle (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do what? jæs (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to say first off that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has no business making connections on whether the shooter was encouraged or not to act as a result to Sarah Palin's map. However, I would like to invite the community to realize that whether we want it or not, Sarah Palin has received heavy criticism at the wake of the mass killing in Tucson. I include this as a proof that the biggest media outlets have made this criticism and have brought to the attention of the general public said map. I believe such criticism must be accounted for in the page of Sarah Palin, and the 2011 Tucson shooting articles.

Furthermore, I would like to make the community here at Wikipedia aware of this. User:Kelly has been battling this criticism towards Sarah Palin 24 hours a day. Now, I do not know whether such user is an Admin, or what. As it's evident, User:Kelly as it is visible in this Talkpage has been defending Sarah Palin and her article in this encyclopedia from any criticism. In particular I would like to refer to a particular contribution of mine: I included yesterday a map that was similar to the one in the poster. As it can be seen in my userpage I am a graphic designer and if you can see throughout my history of contributions in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons I work with graphics. I replicated the map with the crosshairs overlaid in a program called Inkscape and then exported the image as a png and then as jpeg. This image does not even fit the threshold of originality. Yet, User:Kelly under the excuse of copyright infringement deleted my contribution which was intended to illustrate the article. I am not gonna argue with this user on the grounds of whether such removal was right or wrong. I do however can see in this discussion and other similar discussions a pattern. User:Kelly has been persevering in the defense of Sarah Palin's article especially in lieu of the current criticism towards her. It is my belief that the community must take notice on this behavior which I believe is not beneficial to Wikipedia as a collaborative project. I am not saying that User:Kelly should not voice his opinion, but I do believe that in my particular case his editions might have gone unnoticed and not in the best interest of Wikipedia but himself and Sarah Palin's article. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We should, frankly, be so lucky as to have someone at every wp:blp who "persever[es] in the defense" of neutrality and reliable sourcing. As to your comment of "replicating" a copyrighted image, simply recreating it does not make it your own or relieve your upload of our (free) licensing requirements for the underlying work. jæs (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We should be lucky if our policemen were possessed of a modicum of common sense. One editor's inability to recognise the obvious difference between an archery target and a shooting range bullseye, and their comparison of a crosshair to a survey marker, gives me – to put it kindly – pause for thought. I am wondering what gives them the right to delete anything they do not like, particularly when it is reliable sourced. As I am tired of saying here, the onus is on editors to explain why so many reliable sources don't count for anything without resorting to absurd terms like titillation or faux outrage and without reverting passages that comply with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. To then go around mentioning blocks to editors whose contribution of content to the project is both considerable and long-standing is, I'm afraid, insufferable; the effect will only be to drive them away from the project. Ericoides (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a step back. Put down your pitchfork. If you really believe that User:Kelly is going around "delet[ing] anything they do not like," I daresay you might not be seeing things rationally. That being said, the difference between an archery target and a bullseye is inconsequential, as best as I can tell, to the overall argument that's been made: there's a lot of speculation right now, and we need to be careful with giving that speculation undue weight, especially in biographies. Speculation is not always biographical. Some editors believe we should err on the side of caution, as opposed to turning Wikipedia into a newswire. These are not new concerns, they are not limited to the Palin article, and User:Kelly is, by no means, the only editor who has expressed these concerns. jæs (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree. Ericoides (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd still prefer a newswire wikipedia than one written by the facetious and ignorant, better to reflect the news and all sections of a debased political culture than just one section of ' a debased political culture'.Sayerslle (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Editor:Ericoides Consider that the effect may also be to strengthen the resolve of good faith editors to persist in efforts to answer an off-setting force (as Mr Sanchez does above). Your continued efforts are appreciated by the customers of Wikipedia, if not all of the editors.Buster Seven Talk 09:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is being asked here. If it's about the media's criticism of Palin, it's been included in 2011 Tucson shooting#Reactions, along with sourced representatives of other viewpoints, added by others, not by me. If it's about Camilo's image, I'm not an admin so I can't delete anything. If I recall correctly, it was deleted by a Commons admin for being a clear copyright violation - it was just a cropped version of Palin's political ad. Kelly ^hi! 14:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a map with geometric figures overlaid. It was not a full replication of the poster. I had uploaded such poster and I knew I had made a mistake because of the possibility of Palin's original logo actually being copyrighted. That's why I decided to replicate only the map and the crosshairs since I believe they do not fit the threshold of originality under American copyright laws. To claim that the map with crosshairs overlaid is copyrighted material seems to me absurd. I have seen actual real copyrighted material here being used under the fair use rationale concept and for the most part such images make the cut with flying colors. Also, I would like to add, yes, it was you who left me a message telling me you would delete my image as seen here. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"I believe they do not fit the threshold of originality..." Then I'm afraid you are very wrong. Until you better understand the concept, you should refrain from uploading any material based in whole or in part on the original work of others. jæs (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The original work of others? You mean the map of the United States? jeez..I wonder who's copyright I am violating on that one! --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This noticeboard probably isn't the best place to discuss copyright issues. Since it was a Commons image deleted by a Commons admin, you might want to take your complaint there. Kelly ^hi! 23:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not complaining about anything other than you acting like the owner of Wikipedia. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The image was a pretty clear derivative work. And I didn't delete the image, I only submitted it for administrator consideration. Kelly ^hi! 22:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to the hopes of some Palinistas, the media attention to her crosshairs map targeting Giffords and others has not abated and is not limited to lefty bloggers. In the Daily News, which our article describes as the fifth most-widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States, there's now a story titled "Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district".

Can we now agree that this is worth at least a passing mention in Public image of Sarah Palin? I propose adding this sentence: "After the shooting of RepresentativeGabrielle Giffords, Palin was criticized by some for having used a campaign graphic with gunsight crosshairs to mark the districts of Giffords and other legislators whom Palin targeted for defeat in the 2010 election." I'll support it with a few representative citations. The facts in that sentence are completely uncontentious, and one sentence in one of our 20+ Palin-related articles is not undue weight considering the attention given the subject by major mainstream media. JamesMLane t c 04:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JML's sentence. While I initially thought a wait and see pause was called for, I now feel that some mention must be made in the Palin article. I don't think there is anyone that can ignore the fact that almost every news report, around the globe, of the Tucson shooting came with an adjunct report on 'prevailing political rancor' or 'charged and polarizing political rhetoric' or 'a targeted hit in a conservative state', etc. And all, either subtly or point blank, indicate the same source...the crosshairs map.Buster Seven Talk 05:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it probably merits a sentence in the Palin image article. Something like: "In January 2010, a controversy arose as to whether Palin and other conservatives were being unfairly blamed for the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by a gunman who had no evident link to Palin or to conservatives." That should be plenty.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This has received far more attention that an appearance on a daytime talk show, which gets an entire section in that article. The New York Times ran a whole article on Palin's response to this event.[26]   Will Beback  talk  06:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

But what is the NYT saying that is notable, encyclopedic, NPOV, and of enduring importance about the subject of the BLP?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As a reply to Anythingyouwant, your proposed sentence is extremely far from neutral, given that it practically beats the reader over the head with the assumption that Palin shouldn't be getting any blame. JamesMLane's is closer to neutral, although it could probably use a little adjustment. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

atyw's proposed sentence implies blame. No media blame has been placed except on the shooter. The media hub-bub is about the inflamed rhetoric exemplified by the crosshairs map.Buster Seven Talk 07:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)JamesMLane's sentence omits some important and widely reported facts: (1) there is no evidence or even a slight hint that the shooter ever saw the map; (2) many other conservatives besides Palin are being blamed for inspiring the shooter; (3) many reliable sources are reporting about the alleged unfairness of the aforementioned blame given that such maps and rhetoric are common on the Democratic side. My suggested sentence captured most of that, so I disagree that it's POV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A suggested option (#3); "After the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Palin was widely criticized for having used a campaign graphic portraying gunsight crosshairs to mark the districts of Giffords and other legislators whom Palin targeted for defeat in the 2010 election." Buster Seven Talk 07:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I like Buster's No. 3. Carefully phrased, neutral and reflects the current commentary without implying the shooter knew of the map or was influenced by it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I like Buster's No. 3 with a minor change: "widely criticised" could possibly be rephrased more neutrally as "repeatedly mentioned". given that numerous UK and Australian news sources have references to this, I feel that repeatedly is an apt term. Similarly, while some may consider "mentioned" to be a watering down of "criticised", it seems to reflect better the commentary I'm reading.Punkrocker1991 (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I usually don't follow BLPN, but I had proposed the following on Palin talk in response to a similar observation by Buster this morning. I believe this covers the relevant points that a neutral paragraph should cover, i.e. A) Criticism is primarily from the media and not from notable persons. B) Palin spokespeople have stated it wasn't a gun sight on the map. C) Giffords district was not identified uniquely by Palin's campaign, but rather was among many targeted nationally. D) Other campaigns have also used "bulls-eye" metaphors to target key political races. E) There is no evidence that Loughner was motivated by Palin or even politically-motivated in any way. As an aside, I have advocated restraint on adding this because details are still emerging. As we speak, it's becoming clear that mental health concerns were reported by neighbors and fellow students but went unheeded. It seems to me it would be more prudent to wait for a "final" media position on Palin's explicit or implicit role in this shooting, or whether Palin should have a prominent role in the apparent national call for changing our caustic political rhetoric. Anyway...

"In the wake of the 2011 Tucson shootings that critically wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Palin was criticized widely by the media for her campaign's use of a "gun sight" targeting Giffords' and twenty other political districts as the focus for 2010 Congressional races. Palin representatives stated the images were surveyor symbols and not gun sights. Other political campaigns have used similar "bulls-eye" targets to identify key national races. There is no evidence indicating the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, knew of Palin's gun sight map or supported Palin politically."

Fcreid (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In this article Public image of Sarah Palin ? i think you can lose the weaselly widely also she has also had support and some commentators have said the attacking of Palin was a disgrace. Also the fact that you have to add the disclaimer " There is no evidence indicating the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, knew of Palin's gun sight map or supported Palin politically." - reveals the absolute valuelessness of the content. But, hey, if you think wikipedia is a list of press speculation without any basis in fact then , go ahead.Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur on the removal of "widely" as an unnecessary descriptor. I don't follow all the Palin pages, and this was just a suggested item to cover those things I feel must be there to be neutral. As to your other points, I believe there will actually be unrelated consequences to the media handling of this event, but that's irrelevant to the content discussion here. Fcreid (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the disclaimer is required, as this is where the article slips from reporting of neutral fact into speculation. At present there is a lot of discussion in world media about the use of the map, and this is being related to the shooting. If this later is proven to be irrelevant to the shooting, then the additional correction can be made along the lines of, "Initially Sarah Palin was repeatedly mentioned ... It was later ascertained that there was no link to Palin or the map." Punkrocker1991 (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, as it becomes non-neutral by omission of a very significant fact. Fcreid (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really, the disclaimer suggests that there was some reason to connect the campaign advert to the killing, there was and is none, so why disclaim it? Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Right or wrong, in my opinion the media have connected Palin to the shooting, and the text below reinforces that position. I'll defer to the experts, however. Fcreid (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Regarding option (#3); "After the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Palin was widely criticized for having used a campaign graphic portraying gunsight crosshairs to mark the districts of Giffords and other legislators whom Palin targeted for defeat in the 2010 election." 1) It was an attempted assassination, 2) Rep. Giffons was the target, 3) Palin was and is being widely criticized across the spectrum and around the world, 4) They were crosshairs from a gunsight, 5) The map marked the districts, 6)The map named the legislators targeted for defeat, 7) It was the 2010 mid-term elections.Buster Seven Talk 14:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, the aggregate of this discussion will ultimately result in a neutral statement, should it be decided to included. I do disagree with #4 above, Buster. Palin spokespeople made an explicit statement that they intended this as a surveyor symbol, and we have an obligation to report from reliable sources. For the record, anyone with a GPS-enabled BlackBerry knows that is the exact image they also use on the home screen to indicate GPS signal strength... I'm not sure you'd convince RIM it's a gun sight! :) Fcreid (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we are reporting all the exact details of the killings, they are not the focus of the content, Palins retoric is the focus, so, assassination attempt and the Griffiths was the target are undue, the comment that she was crittically injured and a link to the 2011 Tucson shootings is fine, the main issue from a BLP perspective is to avoid undue weight and content that Palin has any contection to the shootings at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Option (#3-A); "After the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Palin was repeatedly mentioned for having used a campaign graphic portraying gunsight crosshairs to mark the districts of Giffords and other legislators whom Palin targeted for defeat in the 2010 election."

• - citations, comment needs perhaps two external links, this one is quite good and contains Palins rebuke also - does anyone have another good one? I also think that the specific criticism that is in this one would be good to add that detail as rather than just the vague criticism. Under criticism that her political rhetoric had helped create a climate for political violence<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/politics/11palin.html?_r=2|title=Palin, amid criticism, stays in electronic comfort zone|publisher=[[The New York Times]]|date=January 10, 2011|accessdate=January 11, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/01/09/palin-aides-inane-bullseye-map-defense.html|title=Palin Aide's Inane Bullseye Map Defense|publisher=[[USA News]]|date=January 9, 2011|accessdate=January 11, 2011}}</ref>

The disclaimer language re the surveyor's symbol is problematic. Palin herself referred to the symbol as a "bullseye" in a Tweet. Also, the idea that it was a surveyor's symbol was actually expressed by a conservative talk show host and then complacently agreed to by a Palin spokesperson. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/01/09/palin-aides-inane-bullseye-map-defense.html Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Great. Let's substitute Palin's own description then... "bull's eye" versus "gun sight". Fcreid (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• - In the immediate aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shootings in which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically wounded, Palin was the subject of a degree of press and political criticism, that her style of political rhetoric had helped to create a climate that fostered political violence. The criticism was specifically related to her campaign's use of a campaign graphic portraying what were interpreted by some to represent gunsight crosshairs to mark the districts of Giffords' and twenty other political districts as the focus for 2010 Congressional election. In a twitter post Palin said they were, "bullseye" and not gun sights.^[4][5] - Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

At this time I can support Off2's option. Any subsequent changes may of course change my support.Buster Seven Talk 15:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, me too, I also commented that to please discuss any desired alterations here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Boldly added to Public image of Sarah Palin#Approach to campaigning - Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My proposal was for a simple sentence reporting the fact of the criticism. Fcreid offered a counterproposal that would add every exculpatory item (fact or spin) that's been put forward. Of course, his version was totally POV. If we presented one side's case so thoroughly, then we'd have to give the other side the same kind of attention. I thought it better not to go down that road because it would turn into an argumentative free-for-all.

That's what's now happened. Off2riorob's original version was somewhat biased toward Palin (for example, saying that the graphics "were interpreted by some" as crosshairs, in lieu of the more accurate "were interpreted by virtually everyone except Palin's paid spokesperson"). Nevertheless, Palin supporters went to work to push it even further in that direction, vigorously adding pro-Palin material. In one particularly notable case, Kelly added a lengthy bit of blather from Palin about how she hates violence, but removed the well-sourced information that Palin had presented her crosshairs graphic with the advice to her followers to "reload" -- even though the latter fact has been widely mentioned in the media.

So, with the Palinistas apparently having realized that they can't suppress the information entirely, and seeking instead to spin it as much as possible, I'll be marching off to join the edit warring at the Palin image article. Any further discussion might as well be on the talk page there. JamesMLane t c 02:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So, when a BLP subject is criticized in an article, including a brief response quote from the BLP is "blather"? Um, OK. And enough with people calling me a Palin supporter just for advocating neutrality on the article, I'm sick of it. Kelly ^hi! 02:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not for advocating neutrality. When you compare the crosshairs to a survey marker, as you did several thousand feet above, then to claim you are neutral looks very fishy indeed, as you are using the very same term as Palin supporters. Or perhaps it's all one amazing coincidence? By the way, could you post a link to a survey marker that looks so like those crosshairs that a reasonably intelligent person with good eyesight could mistake one for the other (we'll forget about context, Palin's comments about targeting, etc etc)? The wikilink you posted above just doesn't cut the mustard. Ericoides (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The comparison was not mine, it was a statement made by a SarahPAC official. It's currently sourced in the Palin article. Kelly ^hi! 12:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's just that the way you phrased it initially, "They look like bullseyes from a shooting range to me, while the symbols on Palin's map look like survey markers. Just shows how all this stuff is completely subjective", strongly suggests that it was your comparison. I'm sure you can see from apparently trivial examples like this why people are wary of what appears to be your impartiality. Ericoides (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Palin camp's implausible denial has to do with anything. The sources say they are crosshairs. The sources also say that a Palin aide just said they were not crosshairs. Those two facts speak for themselves. The real point here isn't exactly what Palin meant or how her public image gets spun, but that her image came under a lot of scrutiny after the event. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Kelly, that's not what I said. The response itself is blather because it says nothing beyond cliche, and doesn't directly address the criticism. Including the bio subject's blather, however, is not blather. We don't have to agree with a statement to report that it was made. That is, in fact, the entire point that I and others have been trying to explain to you throughout this thread. If we're going to go beyond a one-sentence summary, then, yes, Palin's response is one thing we can include (and you'll note I didn't remove it). All I'm saying is that her "RELOAD!" tweet is also worth including, and your removal of that fact made the article less neutral, not more so. JamesMLane t c 03:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

But that language is in the article now. It was reinserted and I understand why. Why are you complaining about it still? Kelly ^hi! 04:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

My point was that, once we got beyond a simple report of the fact of the criticism, the article turned in "an argumentative free-for-all." Of several tendentious edits that I could have cited to prove my point, I chose yours. You removed important and well-cited information that reflected badly on Palin. Your removal clearly wasn't from any belief that the paragraph needed to be shortened, because you inserted a much longer and much less enlightening passage in which Palin tried to put herself in a good light. Console yourself that there are plenty of Wikipedians who'd be honored to have one of their edits chosen by me as a bad example.  :) JamesMLane t c 05:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wish folks would wait until we find out what Loughner's motivation was. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't much evidence of waiting while sources were calling him "left-wing". And perhaps we should also wait until Loughter has actually been tried and convicted too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the "left wing" stuff is stupid too. Kelly ^hi! 03:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin's use of the term 'blood libel' has generated a charged reaction from the commentariat. There's now some discussion at Blood libel as to whether this instance is appropriate to include in the list of notable usages. Perhaps this is related to this discussion? Ronnotel (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)