Talk:David Dao

BLP concerns

Unrelated to the question of his notability is the question of what should be in here under our BLP policy. He quite clearly falls under WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and BLP as a whole has a presumption of privacy. His anger management classes aren't related to the event, and quotation marks around a phrase certainly aren't. The details of his wife finding his payments to another man aren't related to the event. I'm open to discussing whether or not to cover the drugs in general because there has been substantial coverage of it, but BLP would have us do it conservatively. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• It is beyond the bounds specified in WP:BLP:

"The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect."

To include personal and sensitive information about a private individual who is not a public figure in an encyclopedia. Inasmuch, I have removed it. The only thing that meets notability about this person is the event on the UA flight. Ordinary Person (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that Dao's career prior to UA incident is of "ephemeral or marginal interest". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Based on the AfD at the moment it's highly likely this article will be deleted. In the meantime we should prevent the violations of the privacy of a non-notable person (and arguably the victim of highly publicised public bashing). AusLondonder (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The poker stuff is probably fine under BLP since it is marginally positive. I did not personally want to remove the general drug comments without discussion since that has been reverted in the past, but I fully support Ordinary Person being bold here. If something unexpected happens in the next few days to make it significant and inclusion merited under BLP, it can be added then. Wikipedia isn't written on a deadline TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The disputed content most certainly is verifiable and it was presented in a neutral manner. His crimes did receive sustained coverage in reliable sources, and he was convicted of those crimes. Nothing here violates WP:CRIMINAL. Furthermore, the fact that he had restrictions on his license which only allow him to practice internal medicine one day a week in an outpatient facility is relevant to the United Airlines incident, as he made claims on the plane that he was a physician and had patients to see.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Saying his license restrictions are relevant based on his claims on the plane would be WP:OR. It isn't Wikipedia's job to debunk people's claims made on airlines. Justeditingtoday (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit by Tdl1060 was not consistent with current consensus on this Talk page; it was appropriate to revert it IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, and I have no plans to re-insert it. However, you have not addressed the fact that inclusion would be fully consistent with WP:CRIMINAL. He was convicted of his crimes, they received sustained coverage in reliable sources for a period of two years, and again received coverage 11 years later. The claims that were made in the article are verifiable and were presented in a neutral manner. In no way would inclusion of this be a BLP violation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdl1060 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRIMINAL isn't relevant here because his actions aren't why he's notable. WP:BLP is what is relevant, in particular WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. He was not a public figure until yesterday. On Wikipedia, he has the benefit of privacy and conservative editing in regards to any actions that may be controversial because of this. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the crimes that he committed are one of the reasons that he is notable, as supported by the fact that reliable news outlets reported on those crimes for a period of two years. The fact that another incident occured in his life that happened to get more news coverage does not change that fact. As far as the relevance of his license being suspended being original research, a number of reliable news outlets have reported on that, in relation to the United Airlines incident,[1][2] so no it is not original research.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the "sustained coverage" you claim. In the version you wanted, I'm seeing exactly two referenced both are from WAVE (TV) which is the local NBC affiliate in his hometown. WP:PERPETRATOR states that one of two criteria must be met: 1) the victim was a renowned national or international figure or 2) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Dao meets neither of those criteria so WP:CRIMINAL isn't relevant here. Justeditingtoday (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There are five that I have found so far, two from WAVE (TV), two from The Courier-Journal, and one Associated Press article on the site of WKYU-FM, which is an NPR affiliate.[3][4][5][6][7] These stories span from 2004 to 2006. Personally, I have no idea how usual or unusual this crime is. However, these news outlets did consider it noteworthy enough to report on it at the time, and that is the standard that Wikipedia goes by.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

All of those are local media and illegally prescribing and trafficking in prescription painkillers is not historical or unusual so it fails WP:PERPETRATOR. Justeditingtoday (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the initial sources were local is irrelevant. All that it says in WP:PERPETRATOR is that it must be covered in "reliable secondary sources" and these sources qualify as that. As far as how unusual the crime is, there was more to the crime than merely "trafficking in prescription painkillers". Personal perceptions as to how usual or unusual a crime may be can be tainted by many different things. Soap operas and crime drams may give an individual the idea that certain crimes are more common than they really are. As such, we must rely on the judgement of reliable secondary sources, and whether they think a crime is "unusual" enough to warrant reporting on.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You need to read WP:PERPETRATOR again. I quoted the relevant passages above. There are two criteria and Dao meets neither. None of the references you point to call the crime unusual. Justeditingtoday (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The references do not have to call it unusual. WP:PERPETRATOR says the motivation or execution of a crime must be unusual "or has otherwise been considered noteworthy". Noteworthy is the key there, and reliable secondary sources considered it noteworthy enough to report on.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

And neither the motivation nor the execution is noteworthy. And you have no references which claim it is. You are using WP:OR to claim the existence of an article therefore retroactively makes the motivation and/or execution noteworthy and that's not how it works. Justeditingtoday (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What is noteworthy for a crime in a small town in the South in 2004-2006 might not be noteworthy in the sense that Wikipedia uses it. It seems like the type of thing a small town gossip mill would eat up. That's doesn't mean it should be included on Wikipedia, especially given that no one outside the town knew he existed until yesterday. he is a private figure and BLP gives him the benefit of conservative editing and concern for his privacy. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

David Dao's 98 felony convictions are clearly noteworthy given the breadth and scope of coverage in local and national media. However, this should be decided here instead of edit-warred out. BlueSalix (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The definition of "noteworthy" is worthy of notice, worthy of attention, notable. The fact that these news outlets reported on these crimes, shows that they considered them worthy of notice and worthy of attention. Furthermore, notability on Wikipedia is determined by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It is the very coverage of something in reliable secondary sources that determine whether something is notable on Wikipedia. As far as "small town gossip" is concerned, this was covered in the news outlets of Louisville, Kentucky, and Louisville is far from being a small town. If this was covered in Louisville papers and on Louisville TV, many people outside of Elizabethtown, Kentucky would have known that he existed before yesterday.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If the dictionary definition of "noteworthy" were all that mattered then we wouldn't have notability guidelines and yet we do. And this article fails them. Justeditingtoday (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It was not merely the dictionary definition of noteworthy that I cited, but that is beside the point. WP:PERPETRATOR uses the word "noteworthy", so the meaning of that word does matter. The general notability guideline was not what was being discussed. What was being discussed is WP:PERPETRATOR, which uses the word "noteworthy".--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• FOR INFORMATION The person with criminal convictions is NOT THE SAME PERSON as the person on the flight. This is a very serious BLP matter and is why the article's history should not be restored. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in the article that you linked to states that the person with criminal convictions is not the same person as the person on the flight. In fact it says just the opposite. People getting upset on social media about reports of this man's history is not relevant to whether the man's history should have been included in the article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This tweet gives the two different names. BLP is the overriding factor here. Mjroots (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That Twitter link is not working, but this article in the LA Times says that the "internet rumors" saying that it was a different person are false, and confirms that it is in fact the same person. It's a moot point anyway. The page has been deleted, and I don't see that being overturned.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)