User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ianmacm. 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 talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

WP:CANVAS

WP:CANVAS with reference to

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

I've been construing "consensus" to mean consensus throughout Wikipedia, am I wrong? If I'm right, then why is it assumed that recruiting new editors would move AWAY from that? It could be that the existing participation in the article is not representative of consensus.

I still contend that there is nothing in the wording of that post encouraging people to agree with me. I would argue that stating a position on any issue is more likely to encourage those who disagree to respond. In any case I repeat, I was not encouraging editing of the article in favour of my position, merely participation in the discussion.

You commented earlier on a certain reference to a notorious historical figure and seemed to find it trite and unhelpful. I'm sorry, but dictatorship does spring to mind me when one is threatened with censure for daring to answer allegations.

As you seem slightly less hostile than others, permit me to continue to address my questions to you..

Does "consensus" refer to consensus throughout Wikipedia or merely existing editors of the article? How are we supposed to know what the consensus is other than by debate? What would be the advantage if one did attempt to recruit editors known to hold a certain view? What policies apply to the archiving or otherwise reporting of Wikipedia discussions on other sites?

PS, You keep asking this "The puzzle here is why this has suddenly become such a big issue."..

1. It's not a bigger issue to me than any other proposed edit to a Wikipedia article, it just happens to be the one in which I am involved 2. A proposed edit has to come at some point in time, this merely happens to be that time. (W090584 (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

Asking people off-wiki (in blogs, on message boards etc) to edit an article is usually unacceptable, as can be seen as meatpuppetry. Even when it is well meaning, Wikipedia policies would come first, no matter how many people took part in the debate. Although I have not raised strong objections to the addition of the birth certificate, it is a form of original research and does not really add to what is already known. The sky is not going to fall down if this is not added to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"The sky is not going to fall down if this is not added to the article" - What would you consider a worthwhile edit to a Wikipedia article? I submit that the vast majority of edits to articles on Wikipedia do not concern most people greatly, is that the point? I understood that we were invited to make edits to improve the article, that is all I am trying to do

"it is a form of original research" - To be honest, I have more sympathy with the WP:COI argument than that. The death certificate link could be argued to be original research since it is not a link to a report discussing the certificate, rather the certificate is merely to be found on a server owned by a media organisation. In both cases the certificates are primary sources. Incidentally, why does First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution pass WP:PRIMARY ?

"and does not really add to what is already known" - It adds the name of Angelo Bertolotti. Parity is my quibble remember, I would accept a link from Sharon's name to an article mentioning her as Brittany's mother rather than the outdated death certificate - then parity would be satisfied.

"Wikipedia policies would come first" - No problem with that, my contention is that policies haven't been violated since there is no consensus against Sharon Murphy amongst users of the Brittany Murphy IMDb board, neither did I make specific appeal to any individuals who may have prejudiced views against her or Roger Neal

You haven't answered the $64,000 one "What policies apply to the archiving or otherwise reporting of Wikipedia discussions on other sites?" - I don't just mean canvassing, I'm talking about placing these conversations on another server where they can be crawled by search engines or republishing them in blogs etc

And you still haven't answered the question of what would be the point of attempting to recruit people to support my edit? Kww has stated the change will not stand in any event (W090584 (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

The parity argument is not hugely convincing, as most Wikipedia articles do not link to birth or death certificates. Usually, details of birth, death etc would be left to secondary sources (newspaper articles etc). "We must have the birth certificate because we have the death certificate" (or vice versa) does not really stack up as long as the information given passes WP:V. As previously mentioned, nobody here has argued that Angelo Bertolotti is not Brittany Murphy's father. These arguments seem to have taken place off-wiki, and nothing has changed as far as Wikipedia is concerned. As a general rule, only conversations that take place on Wikipedia are considered relevant to Wikipedia articles. People can say whatever they like on external message boards, but if an article related dispute occurs, it has to be resolved here. I'm not a policy expert, but WP:CANVAS goes into more detail.

At the moment, the death certificate is being used to source Brittany Murphy's full name, her date of birth, and her mother's name, none of which is contentious. Her father's name is sourced to a NY Daily News article.. Although the details on the death certificate may have been amended, the article is still reliably sourced. In theory, a person could photoshop a birth or death certificate and upload it to Wikipedia. While I'm not suggesting that this has happened here, it is usual for Wikipedia to rely on secondary sources wherever possible. The death cerificate has appeared in secondary sources on Google image search here, but the birth certificate does not. Unless the birth certificate can be found in a secondary source, it is not ideal as a citation, particularly when nobody is arguing that Angelo Bertolotti is her father.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"We must have the birth certificate because we have the death certificate" (or vice versa) does not really stack up as long as the information given passes WP:V." - That's not my argument, I'm arguing for parity in the weight of citations, not the birth certificate per se.

"As previously mentioned, nobody here has argued that Angelo Bertolotti is not Brittany Murphy's father" - nobody has argued that Sharon is not her mother, and yet a citation appears to that effect that she is.

"the death certificate is being used to source Brittany Murphy's full name, her date of birth, and her mother's name, none of which is contentious" - If it's not contentious, why is a citation necessary? Every article on the internet which mentions Sharon Murphy or Angelo Bertolotti refers to them as Brittany's parents, why is is necessary for an official document to be cited in Sharon's case and not Angelo's? The issue of irony and innuendo does exist within Wikipedia policy articles does it not? I submit that most people would see the reference to the New York Daily News article and assume as I do that they are not in the habit of obtaining birth certificates to fact-check every reference to somebody being somebody's parent. Juxtaposing that with a reference to an official document identifying Sharon as Brittany's mother implies that the claim that Angelo is her father is less reliable by comparison.

"In theory, a person could photoshop a birth or death certificate and upload it to Wikipedia. While I'm not suggesting that this has happened here, it is usual for Wikipedia to rely on secondary sources wherever possible" - I've acknowledged the WP:COI argument, of course it would be easy to fabricate a digital copy of a document. At no point have I suggested that an image file constitutes in itself reliable evidence of the identity of Brittany's father, I repeat that it would be no harder to check the authenticity than to check a book citation - rather easier in fact as the book might be relatively obscure whereas official documents are issued by bodies with offices, phone numbers, email addresses and websites.

It seems to me that whereas I am arguing because I believe there is a disparity in the weight of the citations, you and Kww are arguing out of stubbornness - because you don't think there NEEDS to be a change. Even if that is so, what would it cost you to accommodate me? Replace the death certificate citation with one to an article naming Sharon as mother or remove citations as to either parent's identity and you won't be reading any more from me on the subject - surely an appealing prospect? (W090584 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

There is no stubbornness from me, as the situation has been explained as fairly as possible. The idea that the current citations contain "irony and innuendo" really is rather silly. The death certificate was added because it was readily available at the time of her death in December 2009, that is the only reason why it is there. There is no need for "parity of citations" as long as the material is uncontentious and unlikely to be challenged, which is what WP:V is designed to ensure. Since KWW and I have both done our best here, the matter should be raised in a new thread at WP:ANI if you want a further comment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems there has been a development. Check Roger Neal's Twitter (W090584 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

A little chat

Hi my dear friend. I want to thank for your brilliant contribution on the Hans Zimmer's article, i don't remember your word on the Zimmer's article history that was "Let the fact do the talking", i'm correcting some mistakes in the page of discography and i think your dignified locution must be the unique purpose for wikipedia. My deepest thanks to you.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts

On Talk:4chan#Dusty_the_cat... to see what you think... Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris Brown (American entertainer)

Ianmacm, as someone who edits/looks after articles of musical artists, such as Michael Jackson, would you mind weighing in on the Talk:Chris Brown (American singer)#section 1.4 needs to be reWritten : 2008–09: Graffiti album and domestic violence case discussion? It's about whether or not Brown's domestic violence case should be divided into its own section, should go back to how it was originally combined with his career, or is placed well where it is now. More opinions would help for solid consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Had a look at this and the current wording seems OK. It is probably best to keep the biography and the discography separate, and to avoid lumping the domestic violence case and the 2008 album release into one section with a mixed heading.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I appreciate it. I'm not sure what you mean about keeping the biography and the discography separate, though. Those go hand in hand, as his musical career is a part of his biography. Most other Wikipedia musical artist biographies combine life and career that way too, including the Michael Jackson article. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "keep the biography and the discography separate"? I'd already changed the Life and career heading to just Career, since I took the domestic violence case information away from that section and created Image and personal life to put it there (even though I prefer them combined). So by "biography," do you mean "personal life"? And now that I mention that, I should probably move some of the information about his childhood out of the Career section. Then again, it has to do with his career, so... Now I'm confusing myself, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a long section about the domestic violence, and a much shorter one entitled "2008–09: Graffiti album". Although they occurred at around the same time, they do not appear to be directly related. Keeping them separate seems to be the best option.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy editing issue

Dear Ianmacm

I just noticed the message and warning regarding the aforementioned article on wiki. The consecutive edits were made in mistake as a consequence of changing spelling in the article as "be" should instead be replaced by "been". This was also as consequence of re-slecting save page before it reloaded the website. Although at this time point, an unknown appears to be editing this article removing to important piece of information that I wish to add to the subsection in the article. I hope that you have equally warned this other party.

Thanks Vertias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.193.58 (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please explain at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy why this is notable and relevant. The WP:CONSENSUS is currently against including this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You have

email. (Couldn't find a thingy in Twinkle to do this and don't know the magic words.) Peridon (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks, the ygm template is here:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

The name of the city Dnipropetrovsk is a separate matter from the common name of the murderers. See Dnipropetrovsk. Please make your argument there that that article should be renamed. Until then, that is the name that should be linked to, and reverting the proper spelling with unsubstantiated (and, frankly, self-contradictory) accusations of nationalism is just tendentious edit warring.

I formally warn you.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Replied at Talk:Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs#Article_spelling.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Atari merger question

Since you were involved on some of the related pages in the past, thought you might want to participate in the discussion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Hey bro, i saw u reverted my adding of encyclopediadramatica.ch on the external references section. Ur a dick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timon013 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA, the reasons for the revert are on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Venables

Hi, do you know any more details about the extent of the injunction on the press? Does it extend worldwide, or could an Australian paper (for example) publish the specifics? And does it extend to non-media individuals, such as the passing of the specifics via personal email? Just curious as to how widespread this could go. --TBM10 (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

With the name all over Twitter and Facebook today, the UK government had to admit defeat and give Venables another new identity. I don't know whether foreign media will publish the name, it depends on how interesting they find the story. We do know that the UK government tackled a foreign media source in the past but it is too early to say what will happen this time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. --TBM10 (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Marr super-injunction

I believe you just undid my edit regarding the rumour that Marr's affair was with Alice Miles of the Times. I had not read the talk page for Andrew Marr but have to say that I don't see the relevance of the supposed 'reliability' of Guido Fawkes - the way in which the section was phrased, including the direct quotation from Fawkes, made it very clear that this was a rumour from a significant political blogger. This seems to me a valid contribution: a very well-known political blogger, and more-or-less the only source to make any claims about this affair, stated in 2008 that it was with Alice Miles. That is surely worthy of inclusion. For example 'theories', which often amount to little more than 'rumours', and have no reliable source, about other 'current affairs' events are usually acceptable on Wikipedia pages (e.g. see the many theories and rumours on the page about Leonard Peltier) if they are either widely reported or reported by a significant source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.86.240 (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The guiding policy here is WP:BLP. "Widely reported" is not necessarily the same as true, and while the edit was in good faith, the consensus is not to include this. Andrew Marr rightly waived the super-injunction, but did not allow the woman or child to be named, and we should respect this. Wikipedia is not a gossip column.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I came across you because I read an article regarding super injunctions and had to look up who the villains were that were using suppression tools in such a dastardly manner. I wanted to point out that Wikipedia is a United States based project. Super injunctions are anti-ethical to the United States and what you are doing is ethically improper. Although Wikipedia is not a gossip column, you can read any Wikipedia on U.S. celebrities and regularly see gossip type entries- and you will never see anyone use suppression tools in such instances. I venture if you looked up Schwarzeneger, there are probably already entries mentioning his split with his wife. I don't care if you remove items you personally feel are gossipy in nature, but don't be a hypocrite and only do so for celebrities that have super injuctions. You come across as an arm of the English government - and that is flat out wrong. The use of suppression tools, however, in all cases such as these are flat out wrong - especially when blogs and papers around the world (e.g., Spain, the United States, Peru) are reporting the information. I would hope that in the future you have more respect for the first amendment - something every American holds dear - and something that should be your first consideration whenever considering using suppression tools. Although suppression tools have their place, you have been abusing them and abusing the first amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CavalierLion (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

To reply to these points: I'm not an admin, so cannot WP:REVDELETE edits. However, I have recommended the revdeletion of some recent edits purely on WP:BLP grounds. It is important to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in free speech. Although Wikipedia is hosted on server computers in the USA, the First Amendment is not an "anything goes" ticket, and some material would be libel/defamation if it turned out to be wrong. The reality is that nobody reliably knows the identities of the "celebrities" in the current round of super-injunctions, so the names are removed on WP:BLP grounds. This has been extensively discussed, nothing new or different is happening here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Simply because something is wrong does not make it libelous or defamatory. Rather, the person making the statement must act with actual malice (i.e., they positively knew it to be false or acted with reckless disregard). So, even if someone makes a guess and turns out to be wrong, there is no defamation or libel - this is first amendment 101 stuff. I have no problem with deleting this stuff from an article. But, shouldn't this also be done on articles about people like Clinton and Scwarzeneger and other American public figures. The use of suppression tools is just flat out wrong in such cases - and a reason you do not see them used for US public figures. I think if Americans saw there use in such situations there'd be hell to pay. You can only get away with it for English celebrities because we have no clue who people like Andrew Marr and the Ryan Grigg soccer player are - so we never see it. Like I said, I was just offended by the article I read today and had to look up who the villains were. Also, I am curious where the use of suppression tools in such an offensive manner is being discussed. I'd hate to see such a policy venture over to other areas of wikipedia. CavalierLion (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There have been several threads about this at the Administrators' noticeboard, eg here. Wikipedia tends to be more conservative in its approach to writing about living people than the mainstream media, particularly the tabloids. The guiding principle is "if in doubt, leave it out". This easily applies to gossip sourced from Twitter and the blogs, which is where most of the super-injunction "naming and shaming" is coming from at the moment. Although some people *may* have had reliable tip-offs, other UK celebrities have already been wrongly named, eg Jemima Khan , Alan Shearer and Gabby Logan (trust me, they are famous in the UK). This type of strike rate is unacceptable, and Wikipedia has been shown to be right to revdelete the claims in these cases.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the link. I don't know if I agree that Wikipedia is more conservative than the American tabloids - it seems everything you read there also ends up in Wikipedia. I agree that gossip stuff should be removed from encylopedia type entries. Its the suppression tool use that I have a major problem with. Censorship is just flat out wrong and should only be used in the most egregious situations. I have no clue who any of the people you named are. But, if they are celebs, then there really is no harm to them if someone makes a mistake - especially for these people you listed who all were apparently publicly acquitted. So, I also disagree that the strike rate is uacceptable - it sounds like a no harm no foul situation - and engaging in censorship by using revdelete is the only real harm that occurred. CavalierLion (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

CTB

CTB v News Group Newspapers

File:Sundayherald-2011-05-22.jpg‎

Gareth Barry

Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#May_23

Email

3D information on Youtube

Anthony Weiner

Your use of the words Original Research to describe comments in notable sources which no published source contradicts, while making up your own theories (a cucumber?) which no source supports, and your suggestion, as you yourself revert an edit made in response to the challenge of a comment as unsourced, that we not (!) edit war are interesting, but, I fear, flawed interpretations of WP policy. In any case, you've had your three reverts of other people's comments for the day. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Sorry, not impressed by the template, you have not listened to the comments on the talk page. The New York Post is a tabloid source and has tried to hype up this story. Please don't cherry pick sources to support the theory that the bulge is an erect penis, this is clearly speculative when looking at the actual source material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I was responding to this edit on Talk:Anthony_Weiner by User:Joseph_A._Spadaro. I wanted to apologize for not being clear who I was responding to. I added a link to my edit to clarify things. Also, I have brought up my concerns on Joseph's talk page. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Karswell Holden.jpg

Gagging orders

Hi, been advised that I best delete my posts on that actors talkpage. Apparently though I didnt name names or details I may still have broke the injunction by discussing it on his talk page and given my IP is displayed thats not wonderful. My IP is an AOL IP that keeps changing so not sure its traceable to me and its probably being overcautious anyway but just to be on the safe side is it ok to delete the posts while leaving yours intact? Is it possible for you to remove them from the article edit history too along with IP at all? And this post as well I guess! Sorry to trouble you but could do without any hassle off lawyers. paul85 (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:CTB_v_News_Group_Newspapers#G_and_G_v_Wikimedia_Foundation_Inc_.5B2009.5D_EWHC_3148_.28QB.29 for this type of situation. All that you and I have done here is to point out material that is freely available in the foreign media. The dam is going to burst, see also Hugh Tomlinson's comment in CTB_v_News_Group_Newspapers#Reactions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Fair enough, I'm not entirely sure of all the legal ramifications, my friend just freaked me out a little saying it was a bad idea to post on the subject on the actors talk page with a IP displayed, even without breaking the injunction. As far as I know Ive done nothing illegal but might edit my comments slightly if its ok, I know youre not really supposed to but just to be on the safe side. I dont know how AOL IPs work on here nowadays anyway, I gather Wiki will have my "real" IP (they can block anon. individual AOL users now) but I doubt thats the IP displayed publicly which changes regularly and is seemingly shared with others at times, like a proxy. Cheers for the links, I think the dam is certainly about to burst, especially after the events of the last 48 hours. Who passed legal documents to the Irish newspaper? Presumably a UK newspaper served with the injunction (The Sun?). UK has become a laughing stock, no wonder Jimmy Wales finds it so extraordinary. Anyway, thanks again, think I'll get an account so I can post anonymously! paul85 (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the phrase "laughing stock" does spring to mind here. CTB, TSE and now ETK represent 3-0 down in own goals for Schillings. Quote from their website: "We have a name for protecting clients reputations and have earned our own reputation for securing landmark rulings". Yes, but not always for the right reasons. Have they never heard of the Streisand effect? See also this online cartoon. As a UK citizen, I cringe at how true this is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha, I'd heard of that video but not seen it so thanks for that. Yes, Schillings beheaviour has been odd and seemingly counterproductive, particularly in the case of CTB. Surely you'd think they'd realise suing Twitter would lead to mentions in the US media and consequently him being named on Wikipedia? It was also guarenteed to provoke John Hemming. Drawing more attention to a client who wishes to remain anonymous is an odd strategy. CTB has clearly been a disaster for Schillings and probably led to yesterdays exposes which are far more damaging that the allegations they were trying to contain in the first place. Finest example of Striesand effect you could find I reckon. It is extremely embarrassing for the UK with talk of criminal prosecution for gossiping on the internet though hopefully an end might be in sight now I think. paul85 (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As Kenneth Wolstenholme might have put it: "Some people are on the web... they think it's all over... it is now.".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha! Have just signed all my posts with a screename partly to get rid of the IP off the pages but also to make my posts more easily identifiable given the changing IP. IP of course still in the page history. I assume its OK to do that, if not fair enough, I presume its easily reverted. Simpler really just to get an account isnt it? paul85 (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Inserting the information isn't about "name and shame" as you put it. It is about including information that has reliable sources. We include information like this on other celebrities when there is no superinjunction, why shouldn't we include it in this case? Polyquest (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Name and shame" is perhaps not the best phrase, but I have changed my mind about this in the last 24 hours. This is clearly relevant to the 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy‎, but it has not become a WP:BLP issue for either of the people involved, as has happened with Giggs and Thomas. For this reason, the articles should be conservative and respect privacy, which is normal in WP:BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe respect for privacy should end where reliable sources begin.Polyquest (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of things that are true and reliably sourced that do not necessarily need to be in a BLP. The consensus so far seems to be that the injunction is notable but the affair is not. Please could you give this a few days to see how it settles down. The Irish media did not find this interesting so there is WP:NORUSH to add this (eg, no coverage in Ireland's leading broadsheet newspaper, The Irish Times).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I will not attempt to make edits on the related articles in the near future. But I believe a troubling precedent is being set. The lack of coverage and thus perceived notability is the direct result of a superinjuction. We are thus ceding to an UK court the de facto ability to censor Wikipedia. If Wikipedia policies prohibited the publication of this kind of materiel it would be different, but neither reliable source nor BLP policies provide clear grounds for removing this information. Either policy could be stretched to accommodate such a removal, but such a removal is not necessitated by either policy. I believe when a government is censoring information, and Wikipedia's policies do not forbid the inclusion of said materiel, we should err on the side of inclusion. I will not say to do otherwise is a betrayal of Wikipedia's fundamental value's, but it is a cheapening of them. Polyquest (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And if the injunction is notable, as you claim it to be, and there are reliable sources documenting it. Why isn't information on it being included? Polyquest (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If you go to 2011_British_privacy_injunctions_controversy#ETK, there is a link to the Sligo Today article but the wiki article does not give the names in it. At the moment, I am trying to perform a balancing act between the criticism that the whole thing is being covered up, and that the story has been hyped beyond its WP:BLP value. The Irish Times and Raidió Teilifís Éireann have not covered this, even though they are free to do so. Anyone who wanted to find out the names in ETK did so on the web weeks ago, so there is no need for Wikipedia to scoop the opposition.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not about scooping the opposition. I don't even know what opposition your talking about. You could use the argument that this information is already available on the internet to remove practically anything from Wikipedia. The fact that two particular sources have not decided to cover something isn't grounds for removal of information, this argument could also be used to remove practically anything. Both companies have interests in the UK and that may have affected their coverage. The only reason this information might appear to be hyped up is that most media coverage has been censored. We'll have to ask ourselves how far we want to stretch Wikipedia's policies in order to accommodate the UK's superinjunction.Polyquest (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Although I'm not a fan of doing this, the question could be raised at WP:ANI or the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. This would probably lead to a load of blather and no firm conclusions, but I still think that holding off for a few days to see if anything new emerges is the best option.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've posted an ANI message about the two articles. Polyquest (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've made clear, I think the information about the affair and superinjuction should be in both articles about the actors. However, I think including the information in the article about the 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy but not the BLP articles is a reasonable compromise. I've made one change to the Pauline McLynn article, which doesn't mention the affair but I think improves accuracy by removing a probably false or secondary reason mentioned in the press release. After the ANI discussion, there isn't quite consensus not to include this, but there certainly isn't any consensus to insert it either, so I think I will back off from this debate unless there is a significant change. It has been good editing with you Ianmacm, and I expect I will see you around. (I accidentally made this comment and the edit specified earlier logged out, I logged back in to sign this) Polyquest (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, my views on this are summarized at User_talk:Egonb. Historians are unlikely to conclude that an affair between two minor TV celebs was a major issue. The problem is freedom of information, as well as respecting privacy. The current situation on Wikipedia is a compromise, and should be OK unless further coverage occurs in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've posted on ANI the first results of my background research into the statusof the secondary sources. I omitted the Sligo Champion in this edit but included Sligo Post a short lived freesheet; this was a happy accident. Sligo Today appears to be a successor to the latter, and Ciaran McCarthy the editor of both. An implication of this is that Sligo Today could be given an article in its own right - it has as much claim as Sligo Post, which seems to have had a weak record both online and in print. In this case you could have another route for dealing with the naming, if the consensus is in favour. I expect that the ongoing debate will shift to the paper where it can be placed in an informative context. The result could mean that WP is not being used as a tabloid proxy. As this story unfolds McCarthy could well become notable. I have some background but source reliability could be a BLP problem. Hope this helps.--Egonb (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Sligo Today story has a neutral and factual tone, which is why it is clearly preferable to the original Sunday World story yelling "PAULINE'S SHAMELESS AFFAIR". The Sunday World is essentially an all-Irish version of the News of the World which originally wanted to publish the story. I'm still 50-50 on giving the names in the article, but it has to be noted that publication occurred without any problems in the Irish Republic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Sligo Today link in the headline "Sligo Actress At Centre of UK Super Injunction" stretches an accident of birth. She grew up in County Galway, trained in Dublin and returned to Galway City early in her acting start career as a member of the pioneering Druid Theatre Company. Home and affiliation were next door (to Sligo) which in Ireland can be a stimulus to begrudgery. "Galway Actress" would be more appropriate or "Sligo Born" more realistic. Claiming her for Sligo has the look of clutching at straws and "effrontery". I don't think you mean that The Sunday World is a part of the News Group but it took its template from the News of the Screws and dominates the tabloid market, vastly outselling the latter. As i have said at ANI impunity hasn't been tested, and there is time for that when the story becomes open.

A wise friend once told me that that the purpose of lawyers was to delay the inevitable. Seems to be the case here.

--Egonb (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Apart from watching Pauline McLynn in Father Ted, I cannot claim to be an expert. Although the Sunday World is not part of News Group Newspapers, it has the same type of red top approach. One of the ironies of privacy injunctions is that contempt of court proceedings probably cannot be anonymised, so the injunction would collapse if any attempt was made to enforce it. At a bare minimum, legal action would set off further publicity, as Ryan Giggs discovered to his cost. It is therefore little wonder that Hugh Tomlinson QC no longer recommends this type of injunction to his clients. Without a crystal ball, it is hard to see where all of this leads. As you pointed out at ANI, Giggs fatigue has set in for the time being, and unless the tabloids become very bored, it may not be high on the list of priorities to drag up ETK. It has been in the article since this edit on 9 June, and I am not in a hurry to remove it but nor will I edit war if someone else removes it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I remain interested in your take on the idea of creating a page for "Sligo Online" with the outing of ETK and X an item, which seems to have gotten lost.

Also is there a formal method for putting down a trial consensus statement and inviting support/opposition. The discussion seems to be dyin on its feet. --Egonb (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

New articles should meet the general notability guideline. Sligo Today could be created, but might run into some difficulties and face deletion if all it did was to give a brief description of the site and mention the ETK controversy. Few people would have heard about Sligo Today without the controversy over ETK. It seems to be a reasonable online news source, and the apparent lack of a print edition is not a big problem. In five years' time many UK local newspapers may be online only.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In the course of looking for info re Sligo Today I was told that Sunday World is widely available through UK newsagents, distributed through the usual channels: Smiths News I believe but have not verified this. Bought a copy of yesterday's edition, cover price 1.20 Euro. Could be that the publishers missed a link here and put their UK distributor into jeopardy, at least in need of a defence: innocent dissemination applies here to defamation and is accepted for ISPs. Contempt of Court actions likewise seem to put the burden of proof on the prosecution and this defence might be relevant in principle (but laughable in practice - imagine a fruit & veg merchant "innocently" pushing supplies of German beansprouts). I hope this background helps as the story unfolds. Strange however that the Mail did not cover the Sunday World availability when earlier it had pointed its readers to WP talk pages.

Concerning the BLP: I could see early on that naming in the context of sparse error-strewn coverage did not help to stand up WP as an encyclopaedia, and I had picked up on another editor comment about relative lack of notability. Most of what I know is from research. I hope my edits will support WP credibility.--EgonBoczek (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It is quite possible that print copies of the Sunday World can be bought in England and Wales, as many Irish newspapers are available in London for the Irish community. Lessons seem to have been learned from the CTB debacle, since there has been no sign of any complaint from the parties involved. Two weeks on, the Sunday World story has raised very little interest apart from the story in the Mail pointing out that an Irish newspaper had broken the injunction. This is all somewhat reminiscent of Franz Kafka or George Orwell, but the story was never very notable anyway. Normal WP:BLP rules apply, and I do not support naming either of the people in the ETK injunction in their articles at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree about not naming at this point but it will happen if/when News Group have strong enough grounds to go back to court, eg school term ends, the parents have had time to sort themselves out & tell the children. Just checked theMail article on 6 june - it points to WP here as a source for tens of thousands whilst failing to mention that Sunday World is on sale in UK. I will be checking for any other RoI repetitions. I will get on with the Sligo Today stuff as time allows and keep you informed. --EgonBoczek (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

you removed my criticism section on vevo article why?

About Micronationalism, Sockpuppeteering and Self promotion

Misapplication of WP:COMMONNAME

YouTube.com OR youtube.com

Hello Ianmacm! Can you possibly re-explain why the URL can't be capitalized? I'm kinda confused sorry...

AnimatedZebra (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a distinction between the company name (YouTube) and the URL (www.youtube.com). A Google search gives the company Uniform Resource Locator as www.youtube.com, and the address bar of a browser gives this, even if YouTube.com is entered. This is a common situation, as Google is the company name but the URL is www.google.com. The same occurs with CNN, NBC, CBS and many other companies. As a general rule, the URL is always in lower case letters.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Now I understand! *Bows down to Ianmacm... Although, I thought putting ".com" at the end of YouTube showed that it was the URL? AnimatedZebra (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

After doing a web search, I am still unclear on whether capital letters will work in URLs, but in practice they are always given in lower case letters. It is not possible to make YouTube.com appear in the address bar of a browser, so it is best to stick to the way that it appears to be given when used as a URL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to keep dragging this out but isn't it just common knowledge for people to type a website's URL in lowercase? Even if you don't and use all capitals, the browser will automatically lowercase the URL for you and you'll still be able to access your website. We already know that the URL is www.youtube.com but were just stylizing it as "YouTube.com" since the website's official name is stylize that way.

For example, say I had an ISP e-mail address called "yellowmonkey@example.com" and a website called "YellowMonkey". I could decide to display my e-mail address on my website as "YellowMonkey@example.com" since my website's name is stylized as "YellowMonkey". Even though certain websites tell us to use lowercase letters when signing up for a new e-mail account, we can still stylize them anyway we want to cause sending e-mail to anyone using capitals in their address name or not will still send the e-mail in the end.

Sorry if I've confused you... AnimatedZebra (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In theory, there is nothing to stop a person from using capitals in a URL, but when they are entered into the address bar on a browser, they redirect to lower case letters. For the purposes of giving the URL in the infobox of an article, it makes sense to use the standard way in which it is given, eg http://www.cnn.com. E-mail addresses are a separate area, and may be case sensitive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. However, should we put the "www." part back into the URL? I only ask because some websites that have article pages seem to have it in their URL and some don't. OR is this simply because some websites make it possible for you to type their URL into the address bar without typing "www." in... eg. The Iconfactory. AnimatedZebra (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The standard practice in infoboxes is to leave out the http:// and www. parts, as this is regarded as a given. Most major websites do not require the www. part for the URL to work if it is typed into the browser address bar.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I see, I hear and I understand completly now! Sorry for constantly posting all the time but we made it in the end I guess... :D

User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 5

WP:CANVAS

A little chat

Your thoughts

Chris Brown (American entertainer)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy editing issue

You have

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

Atari merger question

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Venables

Andrew Marr super-injunction

CTB

CTB v News Group Newspapers

CTB v News Group Newspapers

File:Sundayherald-2011-05-22.jpg‎

Gareth Barry

Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#May_23

Email

3D information on Youtube

Anthony Weiner

Fair use rationale for File:Karswell Holden.jpg

Gagging orders

you removed my criticism section on vevo article why?

About Micronationalism, Sockpuppeteering and Self promotion

Misapplication of WP:COMMONNAME

YouTube.com OR youtube.com

File:Labelled flaccid penis.png listed for deletion

Boy racer

Katyn Massacre

A barnstar for you!

A barnstar for you!

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks

		The Current Events Barnstar
		For your work on CTB v News Group Newspapers VER Tott 09:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		If I deserve two of these you deserve about seven! Great work producing a quality new article, much appreciated. doomgaze (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

	The Civility Barnstar
	Bakhshi82 (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)