Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 7

message: Here's from today's New York Times corrections:  An article on Tuesday about the struggles of St. Louis in the wake of a population decline misspelled the surname of an assistant professor at Washington University who has been involved in municipal planning projects. He is John Hoal, not Haul. This isn't the only NYT correction for the day, and every day has a list of corrections for previous issues. Nor is there any reason to believe that these are comprehensive. Anybody who has had any extensive dealing with journalists (10 interviews or more, which for example, I've had) knows that it's rare to see a major article about any subject you know about, which doesn't contain a major error which never goes corrected. This goes for major papers of major cities.
Now, this is a problem. Mr. Hoal may have got his name fixed, but nothing says the NYT had to correct it. If it hadn't, he'd have been stuck claiming his name his Hoal, not Haul, and in a dispute it would (in theory) have been his personal word as a Wiki editor (who has no way to verify his identity), against a well-sourced source like the New York Times. This happens ALL the time. It's not rare. It happens because editors trust overworked journalists who don't fact-check entire articles with article-subjects, and because there's very little penalty to newpapers which make mistakes. There really isn't. Much of what the NYT prints as errors, are designed to suggest to the pubic that they catch ALL errors at this level of detail. Wrong. They don't. 
Wikipedia policy doesn't really address this unbalance. Changes in this Wiki recently (See the change by WAS 450 recently in the history) suggests they don't intend to. WAS 450, I see you have little experience with being interviewed by the press. Write about what you know, please. Jimbo Wales, YOU have certainly had enough contact with the press to know I'm dead-on right about their general accuracy. Which doesn't somehow magically improve when it comes to information about living persons. So I'd like to have YOUR comment for the record on "newspaper vs subject" fact disputes in BLP issues. SBHarris 16:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both "published reliable sources" (eg New York Times) and experts with a conflict of interest (eg the subject of a wikipedia bio) get stuff wrong. We can't just change properly sourced material every time the subject of a bio says "no, that's wrong." WAS 4.250 18:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Since the source is the ultimate expert about himself and his own life, he's FAR more likely to be correct than is the journalistic squibbing of your "verified published source." This is one very acute example of the fact that there ARE objective experts on certain subjects, in this world. I'm a objective expert regarding me and my life. Nobody else knows it better. Wikipedia may have a general policy that there's no such thing as objective "truth," but on that, Wikipedia is simply wrong. (Show me the man who says he doesn't believe in objective reality and truth, but who does have a driver's licence and uses it, and remains alive, and I'll show you a liar). Regarding the question of my own expertise on my own life, if it's a question of my honesty vs. somebody else's mistake in print, there are ways to clear that up without resorting to having two more people print the "truth" (something more verifiable or citable). Wikipedia will not admit that, however, because that (again) gets into the sticky question of whether objective "truth" exists, outside of what people print. Which is a damn silly mire to be stuck in, but Wikipedia put itself there, with its own philosophies. I'm not responsible for this foolishness. SBHarris 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're proposing.  We base our articles on sources.  It is possible for those sources to be wrong.  It is possible that a person to see an article about themself with a mistake and fix it.  But it's also possible for a person to see a statement about themself that is correct and sourced, but they just don't want in the article.  How would you propose we tell the difference?  And to be honest, people do misremember some details of their own life sometimes.  There are also differences of wording, where the subject may prefer to use different terms to describe something than the sources use, should we let them write their own "autobiography"?  --Minderbinder 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though flawed, it would be a better (and overall more acurate) solution than having other people write a biography about them, without their input or editing. Everything you say about the falability of individuals about their own lives, applies IN SPADES to their falibility in writing about other people's lives. Perfection is not available, so you pick the best alterantive. Autobio is here the best alternative. Autobio upgraded by more objective records is even better, provided that such records are not mere paper re-creations of the flawed processes that produce an autobio (ie, some reporter's memory of a phone interview.). But if it gets published in a big newspaper, you can get exactly that bias. Really, you need to interact with real, live, professional journalists on a few stories to understand just how bad and careless they are about facts, as opposed to (say) scientists and engineers. If you haven't had this direct experience, I really can't educate you about it. SBHarris 18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess you're just proposing allowing people to edit articles about themselves?  And in the case of edit disputes, the subject gets the final say?  And what do you propose if the subject writes a biased or inaccurate article, or do you consider that an acceptable outcome.  For the record, while people are discouraged from writing about themselves, they certainly can give input on the article talk page, as well as request corrections via a couple other avenues.  --Minderbinder 18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If someone removes information from an article about themselves, claiming that it's inaccurate, I would say to give them the benefit of the doubt. If there's a dispute and the information appears to be well-sourced, well, move the statement to Talk, and figure it out.  But keep in mind that newspapers and magazines get stuff wrong all the time.  I was just talking to a writer the other day, who'd sent a manuscript to a magazine, and the magazine's editor chopped it around, making it look like the article's author was quoted as saying something which was never in the original manuscript. For Wikipedia's purposes, I agree that if the subject has a reasonable protest, that it's better to not include the information at all, than to possibly be including something that's inaccurate. --Elonka 20:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So following that philosophy, if Bill Clinton went to Bill Clinton and removed all info about Monica and impeachment, saying it's "inaccurate", you'd leave it out?  See why that could lead to some pretty bad articles?  --Minderbinder 20:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Who is Monica? Bus stop 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet the article Bill Clinton will answer your question.  --Minderbinder 20:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  There is too much risk of the subjects lying to white wash negative information about themselves.  We should stick with the published sources.  The subject can publish a rebuttal (even on a blog if that is all they have) and we can cite that along with the original source.  If the subject of the article wants to validate their identity (E.g. with a notarized statement) we might be able to include their rebuttal without it being published elsewhere, but that is as far as we should go. Johntex\talk 20:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The notarized statement mechanism should indeed be in place, but isn't. And when it's used, it should trump any single-source journalistic report, since it's one person's word against another's. The situation described by myself and Elonka above is VERY common. Indeed, I would say probably it's the usual case in news articles. SBHarris 21:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in place, please see WP:OFFICE.  People can contact the Wikimedia foundation with proof of their identiry. Johntex\talk 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope. Read WP:OFFICE carefully. It's a temporary and semi-emergent action taken where some NPOV has been alleged in regard to some BLP, and intended to fix things until wiki-procedure ferrets this out. But there's nothing in WP:OFFICE to suggest that if the NYT gets the facts of your life wrong, it ever will be fixed, long term. There's nothing in there that promises that you can send them a notarized and witnessed statement, and they'll fix it forever. Nada. Read it again. Quote to show I'm wrong. SBHarris 02:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edit conflict) Responding to the "Clinton" analogy: If the Monica story were just breaking, and Clinton went to the article and pulled out all the information saying it was inaccurate, I'd say move it to talk, get a consensus that the sources were reliable, and allow Clinton to state why he felt that the information was inaccurate. If he said, "A magazine misquoted me," I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.  But if he was insisting that every independent reliable source was getting it wrong, then I think that would make his claim less reasonable.  In other words, I'm saying that if an article subject disputes our information, it should be our responsibility to temporarily remove the information while we triple-check our sources, do our best to hear the subject's reasoning, and ensure consensus to re-add the information, rather than us insisting on keeping potentially false information in an article over the subject's objections. If it's a big enough story, the truth will emerge -- we're not trying to "scoop" the world here, we're trying to get it right, and if that takes time, so be it. --Elonka 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are after what is verifiable, not what is true.  We report what others have reported, and we attribute them as our source.  They need to go take it up with the primary source, not with Wikipedia. Johntex\talk 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite this very policy saying that the subject can be used as a source? So if in the above example the subject said his name was wrong on say his own website, you'd wait until the other source changed it as well? One Night In Hackney303 21:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't say that.  If sources conflict, you cite both sources.  Example, "The New York Times said that the chairman of Allerca had been in jail for fraud, though he states that he was actually jailed for "contempt of court" during his trial and that he was later acquitted of the fraud."  When reputable sources conflict, we cite both sources. If we have 10 sources to 1, we can generally ignore the 1 source that differs. Johntex\talk 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, for minor changes that is true.  For instance, if the reliable source says that someone has 3 children, and they really have 4, they may not want their fourth child to feel left out.  There is no reason for the subject to lie about that.  It is not like they are denying negative information or trying to insert positive information.  It is a neutral, minor change.  In that case we could allow the change. Johntex\talk 21:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a published source where the person says they had 4 children then we can quote that. Otherwise, we might delete the "3" or add qualifiers like "As of (date) (source) claims (subject) had 3 kids". WAS 4.250 00:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The subject vs. "verifiable source" in BLP.

message: # "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability" 
#: Change "if" to "only if".  Perhaps also clarify that criticism should receive space proportional to its relevance, notability, and the size of the rest of the article -- so a stub shouldn't include any but the most widely-known criticism.  
# under the section on subjects that are not public figures:  "editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability."
#: change "exercise restraint" to "exercise restraint, keep the article as brief as possible," -- it isn't just about restraint, it is about balance.  It's not helpful to include all information relevant to someone's borderline notability, for instance -- include a quantity of information proportional to the notability; else you have a slippery slope where almost any information can be shoe-horned in; in particular, criticisms of a person's life tend to be sticky and to attach to everything they have done.
+sj + 21:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Wordsmithing 

message: This has my Strongest possible support. The objections here that the 'default' action is to easy to fake with outside influence isn't an argument against this proposal... it's an argument to shut down AFD entirely, or an argument in favor of this proposal. I don't personally think AFD default is that subject to influence, but if it is we should certainly make the default the safer action.   It's always been the case that default is intended to be the safer action, but the 'safer action' isn't always the same. Based on our experience, it would appear that deletion is almost certainly the safer case for biography articles of low profile people.  I don't think this is equal to a rule against creating BLP's in the first place, ... to reach AFD first someone experienced enough with our processes must object. A change in the default is no more a BLP prohibition than is the ability to delete them. --Gmaxwell 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Wikipedians are not on mailings lists are IRC.  For that reason, off-wiki discussion of policy mean little.  This is the proper format for discussing such a change, and it should also be published at the village pump at at AfD if the proponents are serious about seeking consensus for such a change. Johntex\talk 22:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: David Heymann was nominated for deletion because someone thought the subject was "non-notabe", which usually just means the nominator does not happen to care about the particular subject matter.  The article says nothing at all negative about the subject, and is well sourced.  It has sinced passed GA.
However, the article barely passed AfD.  If this proposal were to be implemented, perfectly good information such as this would be lost just because some people want to see it deleted. 
The presumption at AfD should always be to KEEP. Johntex\talk 22:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "barely passed;" the result was keep and rightly so, since notability was asserted (the article getting better as the AfD progressed) - and those in favor of keeping made stronger arguments anyways. (Here is the AfD). So I don't see the relevance of your example. Picaroon 00:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see the relevance either. That wasn't a no consensus close (nor should it have been, it was a clear keep consensus), so even had this been policy at the time we'd still have that article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Picaroon said, the article underwent a dramatic expansion during the AfD.  It was nominated for AfD on the same day it was created and only very fast work got it to the point of being kept.  Had that effort been a little less dramatic, it could easily have been a no-consensus and "keep" by default.  The point is that it can already be hard for a new article to pass AfD, even if it is a worthwhile stub.  Johntex\talk 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's why I came up with my suggestion (IE, no consensus with little participation=relist to get more participation to determine consensus). I am not happy with any suggestion to treat no-consensus as delete. Gives too much power to the shouters in AfD, IMO. If we can get admins to be harsher to discount WP:ILIKEIT's and WP:IDONTLIKEIT to have real discussion with regards to notability in AfD's (I'm talking about Notability based on what the articles being used as a source say, not the unholy fusion of Notability via articles combined with WP:OR. It's just my viewpoint regarding Consensus, and while I'm not HAPPY with the proposal above, happiness is not a requirement when editing. SirFozzie 03:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that goes quite far enough. Worse, it will take issues where the community is clearly divided where no clear consensus will emerge and makes us argue about them forever. Not good for anyone's mental health. I fear that with such a process AFD's would just be decided by which side exhausts the quickest. :( --Gmaxwell 03:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How about some broad criteria for which the old AFD rule would apply, and anything failing that gets default delete AFD criteria. I might suggest "a widely published book with the person's name in the title", "holding an elected public office in any country", and "covered in a traditional encyclopedia" as some grounds for "notable enough to make the normal AFD rule apply". I suspect that we could expand my list of external references enough to keep all but the extreme anarchists happy. --Gmaxwell 03:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If any of those three applied, I'd hope that any AfD on them would pretty much be speedily kept.. How about going back to Jimbo's post and instead of stating no consensus=delete, that we do not require the normal "Consensus Supermajority", and that a majority of valid !votes to keep are required (I could see a no consensus at 60-65% for example, if there's a lot of folks and discussion gets heated, I saw a MfD (the AMA MfD) at about 70% "Historical" get a no consensus, for example. Yes, I know Polling is bad and evil and makes the baby Jimbo cry, but I'd say with BLP, perhaps if a simple majority of !votes say it should go, then it goes. SirFozzie 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That could work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would definitely require a mechanism for dealing with SPA's, if we're going to make it strictly numeric, but it could work. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a LOT of extra work for the closing admin, but maybe put something on the page that "Any Single-Purpose-Account who expresses a desire to keep or remove the article without valid rationales to do so WILL be discounted when it comes to determining the outcome"? It would require the closing admin to check the contribs of !voters to determine SPA. Maybe two or three admins could volunteer to handle BLP type AfD's, or a clerk-like setup like ArbCom and RfArb seems to have? SirFozzie 06:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather we not change AfD into a vote. AfD ought to be decided on the merits of the article and not on which side can gather the most supporters. Sure, numbers are a part of the closing decision, but by no means should they be the most important part. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that SlimVirgin and Gmaxwell's points are well made.  I suggest that we should prioritise working any kinks out of this idea; Wikipedia's profile isn't going to decrease and we continue to acquire articles that we do not maintain.  Given that, it would be best if we, as the editing community, can come up with a solution to the problem before one we like less is imposed upon us through circumstance.  Jkelly 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Example of a problem with this proposal

message: Perhaps we should have a process to blank a BLP article where the subject of that article asks, the subject of the article has a clear, demonstrated distress over having the BLP article on Wikipedia irrespective of the content, and the demonstrated distress significantly outweighs the importance/fame of the person. Daniel Brandt meets WP:N, but it seems to me that Daniel Brandt has demonstrated distress over the Daniel Brandt article through his numerous pleas on Wikipedia and his importance/fame is relatively small compared to the amount of this demonstrated distress. I don't think that there are that many individuals clamoring to have their BLP article removed and there are even less with such demonstrated distress. For example, Rachel Marsden's position was a request to fix her article to meet WP:BLP, not delete it. To derive such a process, we first need to compile a list of all those desiring to have their BLP article blanked and then review the compilation to figure out the proposed procedure. If interested, please list below all those BLP articles for which the person who is the subject of the article desires that it be deleted. -- Jreferee 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree. The subject's desire should not play into whether they have an encyclopedic entry about them or not. SirFozzie 02:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree.  The subject should be able to contact us and have redress over negative information if it is poorly sourced, but they should not have a veto power over whether we have an article or not. Johntex\talk 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How are we supposed to evaluate distress against notability? They are two entirely different things. -Amarkov moo! 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any way to evaluate levels of distress. However, we can take note of a subject's request about this intrusion into their lives, yea or nay. Surely you can identify with this desire for privacy, since you don't even choose to include your real name on your user page. And it would be the same if we bio'd you and put that you didn't like broccoli, since for all we know, you'd recently told somebody you badly wanted to impress that you loved their cooking after being served broccoli. What parts of a person's life are "negative" or sensitive, and should be available to the world by google, are not something Wikipedians should be deciding. Or their sources, either, for that matter, but we can only control what's within our control. We do have the power to make anything bad in that direction, even worse. So let's be kind, and not. Do unto others, oh anonymous editor, as you'd have them do unto you. SBHarris 02:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between people who have articles and me is that the information there is (or should be) sourced. I can go check to see that someone else said all the information that is allowed to be in BLP articles. Sourced information on me simply does not exist, and anyone who has no sources on them is perfectly justified demanding deletion without this addition. -Amarkov moo! 04:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A claim like that begs to be tested, and I'm just beginning to understand Brandt's point of view when confronted with such statements. Even if it's now true, what allows you to look into your future? I'm sorry to be the one to inform you that you're not above the powers of mortal man, and you're vulnerable to all the same slings and arrows of outrageous fortune as rest of us. The results of which are increasingly well documented and published in our increasingly transparent world. You yourself may be blameless, but in your future may be a messy divorce, a law suit brought against you by crazy people with good attorneys, or you may be victim of a crime, or a loathsome disease, or simply the intensely bad luck of being made to look guilty of a crime you didn't commit. And a dozen others indignities. In all those cases, you may find yourself blameless, yet documentedly screwed. And Wikipedia, once the facts are in any measure public on a small and forgetable scale, may then, under present policy, very well help screw you, on a large and lasting scale. Yeah, I know you can't imagine it happening. That's the problem. Not that it can't, but that you can't imagine it. SBHarris 23:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *One need not evaluate levels of distress. Distress expressed should be taken and accepted at face value. Bus stop 02:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * Taken at face value, yes, but then discarded. It plays no part in Notability, Verifiability, or anything else that goes into making articles for an encyclopedia. SirFozzie 02:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *It plays a part in keeping Wikipedia a compassionate forum, and it "costs" little. Bus stop 03:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a compassionate forum, nor should it be one. There are many nice web sites out there for that. Wikipedia should be an online encylopedia that treats ALL articles evenly AND fairly. The cost, imo, would be the equivalent of selling one's soul to the devil for avoiding discomfort. Again, I feel like we are confusing libel issues with notable person's desire for privacy. Anyways, --Tom 12:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes, we do have to evaluate levels of distress. Distress that you don't get to control all information on yourself should have no bearing, while distress that information which isn't easily accessible is being distributed widely should. And we have to decide how much distress is being caused, because a minor amount of stress shouldn't be able to delete well' sourced information. -Amarkov moo! 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new BLP process 

message: * Add a subset to the BLP noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Deletion request
* Possible criteria for requesting a deletion:
*# Subject does not have a biography published in a reliable source
*# Subject is the requester 
*# Subject is marginally notable
*# ++ (other useful criteria)
Process:
* Add a request to WP:BLP/N/DR
* Post a notice at the BLP noticeboard WP:BLP/N
* Post a notice at WP:RFC biography section
* The review will take the form of an RfC. 
* Main difference with current AfD: 
** Wider participation by editors interested in biographical article, by means of these notices
**The closing admin will err on the side of caution when closing, evaluating the comments made by the requester and the editors participating in the discussion.
** If there is a small number of participants after the customary seven days,, the closing admin should extend the review period for another seven days.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, I would prefer straight AfD to RfC, but that's a nit, and a small one at that.. I would add that the closing admin should not be one who participated in the debate (probably goes without speaking, but). Otherwise, I like it. SirFozzie 16:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article for Removal should be an entirely new process since it gives weight to a personal request of the subject of the article.  Since WP:N of a topic is measured by WP:RS, "marginally notable" can be measured by the number of WP:RS available for the article as well as the amount of text those sources devote to the topic.  I think this process should assume that the article meets all article standards, e.g., Neutral point of view, Verifiability, What Wikipedia is not, No original research, and Biographies of living persons and that the requestor should demonstrate why the article should be deleted based on reasons other than article standards (something along the lines as "Having this article on Wikipedia has disrupted my life and continues to disrupt my life.  I can't eat, I can't sleep, I constantly worry about what someone will post. People I know constantly ask me about what is posted in "my article" and its hurtful to me that I remain accountable in the real world for something posted on Wikipedia. I have met with several Wikipedia administators and they agree that I am distressed over this article." etc. etc. etc.)  This process should be rigorous and used only in exceptional circumstances. -- Jreferee 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But why not? This will give a clearly signposted place for marginally notable people to state their concerns. No harm done if we are more accommodating than currently. Most non-Wikipedians will not know how to initiate an AfD. Having a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Deletion request page, with an easy-to-use process could be the way. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any WP ed. can ask somebody else to place an AfD for them. I'm asked once or twice a week, and so are others. And various people and bots fix up the ones that people do wrong. Of course, a revision in the procedure to have a one-step template as in prod would be very helpful to everyone; I don't think it's beyond wikimedia capabilities.   DGG 08:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: :Relevant is the key word.  Do you mean relevant to the article's topic, or relevant to the article's topic's notability?  I assume the later.  If so, then I don't think we do disagree.  But were we to take the former position, then we would be taking chances with other people's lives for no real return.  Apparently true but off-topic facts are the most likely to turn out false in damaging ways, and they don't add encyclopedic value.  When something isn't obviously relevant to the subject's notability, it should come out.  Regards, Ben Aveling 12:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean relevant to the article's topic.  Relevant to "the topic's notability" means very little, in my opinion, but "relevant to the topic at hand" is important. Obviously information that isn't relevant to the article's topic as a whole can be removed as being irrelevant to an encylopedic discussion of the subject. And I disagree with the sentiment that including well-referenced verifiable information that is relevant to a topic is "taking chances with people's lives".  People make their own lives - the published, accurate and relevant information about them does not.  Dugwiki 15:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose sweeping statements that anything controversial must be "relevant to the subject's notability." If it's been published in a secondary source such as a newspaper, it is one of the things making the subject notable. Where are we supposed to draw the line here? Hugh Grant is notable for his work in acting, but does that mean we can't mention the Divine Brown thing because it's irrelevant? As with any article, due weight is what's important. Kla'quot 15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hugh Grant is a public figure.  Even so, when we discuss the incident, we present just the relevant facts, and we present them fairly: "he was arrested in Hollywood for indecent conduct with a prostitute, Divine Brown, in a public place[5]".  If you want to know what position they used, you can follow the links.  There are exceptions, but in general, people are notable for specific reasons and stuff outside that just isn't encyclopedic. This isn't a change in policy.  Policy already says "include only information relevant to their notability", and that "Presumption [is] in favor of privacy".  Regards, Ben Aveling 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I see what you mean. Yes, Hugh Grant is a public figure and I forgot you are referring to a section that applies to non-public figures. Kla'quot 05:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant to what?

message: I've been following discussion of this elsewhere, and the general feeling there is at least disappointment. I have to say that on one level I agree with them.
Right now there's substantial cause for someone who gets stuck with an unwanted Wikipedia biography to take the Seigenthaler option and head straight for the courts. And it's especially so for someone whose notability doesn't begin to approach public figure levels. It's not just that an article can have false/hurtful statements; it's that it's wide open to have such statements inserted at any time by anyone. And no subject of such a biography is beholden to Wikipedia's processes. Whatever the responsiveness of those processes, they are Wikipedia's problem, not the world's problem; nobody makes a commitment to participating in those processes by simply existing.
We can expect people to say, "I don't give a fig about your procedures; supervising your editors is your problem, not mine." I don't think this is being addressed. Mangoe 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By elsewhere, you mean WR, right? Just want to make sure on that.. I think that to appropriately address your concern, WP would no longer be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Whether that's a good thing or not, is for the reader to decide, but I don't think that it can be fixed without blowing up WP and starting over. SirFozzie 18:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah. Wikipedia was never the encyclopedia where anybody could edit by doing anything they wanted, without responsibilities. Which vary already from topic to topic. Some articles require sign-in's NOW, for example. And there are other rules. Pedophiles can edit, for example, so long as they don't self-identify as pedophiles. "Anybody can edit" doesn't mean "anybody can take anything they like as subject." Making BLP a place with extra rules is not going to make the whole place come apart, unless that was your gig to begin with (messing with BLPs of people not in standard works). In which case, I say "too bad." Try birdwatching or history. SBHarris 19:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Wikipedia is already the encyclopedia that not everyone can edit all of, so the commitment to that principle is not absolute. And it shouldn't be, unless one is willing to give up having an encyclopedia at all in order to preserve everyone's right to edit any part of it. There seem to be a lot of people here who presume that the breadth of Wikipedia's coverage overrides essentially anyone's desire not to be discussed in public. But many people-- and I'd number myself among them-- would hold the mere creation of a Wikipedia about themselves as a form of harassment, because it draws attention to them; and outside of Wikipedia, nobody has to assume good faith. Mangoe 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some external discussion of this 

message: Noting Doc's comment in the deletion debate for Jeffrey St. Clair, I would like to suggest a variant of the  tag as follows:
It is proposed that this article be deleted as a biography of a living individual which does not cite its references or sources.
If you can improve the article by sourcing it, please [ edit this page] and do so. You may remove this message if you add reliable independent sources. This template should not be removed without first sourcing the article.
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 14 days.
If you created the article, please don't take offense.  Instead, please improve the article so that it is acceptable according to the policy on biographies of living individuals.
Nominator: Please remember to notify the [ author(s)] of this article via their user talk page using: 
: -- ~~~~
WP:BLP article, unsourced, marked as such for 14 days, quietly deleted, no fuss, no mess, and undelete on request with the proviso that the tag be replaced on restoration, giving the interested parties a further 14 days to fix it.  What does the panel think? Guy (Help!) 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, the only question is do we put this ONLY on BLP articles that have no sources entirely, or if the article is at least partially unsourced? SirFozzie 19:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I know I fear this, but I can't pinpoint why. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you fear it because of the "reliable sources" can of worms? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't thought of that part, but it certainly doesn't help.  Let's say, just for example, Stephen King has no sources and gets tagged.  No one fixes it, it's deleted in 14 days - if someone else recreates it, still without sources, does the clock reset?  What if an article has sources, but they're not inline sources?  What if someone contests the tag based on this?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure that this adds anything to the basic WP:PROD and WP:BLP combination. If an article doesn't assert much notability, it can be quietly PRODded, and will go. If someone's notability is unsourced, the item can generally be deleted per BLP, since the fact that makes you notable is usually controversial enough that we require a source for it. So what does this add? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's a good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike the idea. It seems to unnecessarily add another level of bureaucracy to Wikipedia ... this one on a 14-day cycle. If a BLP article has no sources and I can find none in a 1-2 minute online search, I just tag it with , bookmark the page, and wait for it to be improved within five days or deleted thereafter. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another proposal 

message: Another item for discussion: Which of the following do people prefer? Kla'quot 05:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the first one. Crum375 05:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I also prefer the first; admins have to be allowed to use their own discretion about the need to protect BLPs without waiting for them to be repeatedly recreated. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nonexistent pages can be watchlisted. I feel telling admins to just use discretion is insufficient guidance here. How are they supposed to assess the need to salt a BLP if the article has only been created once? I'm open to suggestions for wording this. Whatever we decide, WP:SALT and WP:LIVING should be brought into sync with each other. Kla'quot 05:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the second one as it provides more guidance and clarity. The first one does not distinguish between a BLP article created and deleted only once and whose content was "Tommy is a great ball player." and one that is repeatedly created and deleted and contains the content "Tommy ritually sacrificed his neighbour's goat." -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I prefer the first, though I wouldn't have a problem with a compromise wording to make it a little less strong, for example to show that it shouldn't be done just on a whim. If an administrator thinks, based on the history of the article, or on the history of the person who wrote it, that there's a risk of recreation, especially for harassment purposes (bio of non-notable person created by vindictive and deranged ex-lover? / article about the real-life identity of an anonymous Wikipedian who has been "outed" by some stalking trolls?), the administrator shouldn't be obliged to wait around until it actually happens. ElinorD (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The first, it's shorter and much more direct. I have frequently deleted attack pieces and salted immediately. If the person becomes notable enough later, it just takes an admin agreeing that's the case for the article to come back - David Gerard 11:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The first.  Less instruction-creepy, and more in line with current practice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope the first isn't current practice.  The second one, please - it's absolutely more sensible.
--badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first is current practice for BLPs that are a BIG PROBLEM. If someone becomes more notable and you can't convince a single one of 1200 admins to unsalt it ... perhaps they're not deserving an article after all. FWIW, I've had zero unsalting requests myself - David Gerard 14:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you determine if a BLP is a big problem, and how do you decide how long a page should be salted for? Remember some people have been admins for years and some for minutes. Give the newly-mopped some help here. Kla'quot 15:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The first describes how I have been doing it. Often it is better to protect a page quickly before it generates drama, and then remove the protection after something shiny has distracted the creator. Tom Harrison Talk 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: BLP enforcement is everyone's business. Making salting the default actually harms the encyclopedia, because not every new editor will be able to sort out how to get rid of that 18-month-old block on Tom Black. -- nae'blis 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Salting Deleted BLPs

message: The old language, and the language currently on the page per my revert said,
"Per Wikipedia's guidelines on protecting deleted pages, pages that are repeatedly re-created after deletion in unencyclopedic form or against policy can be protected from further re-creation. "Salting" titles is intended to be a temporary measure, as it inhibits the creation of legitimate articles."
this was changed to,
"After deletion of a BLP, any admin may choose to protect the page against recreation."
The new language both worries me and strikes me as unnecessary.  It doesn't link to WP:SALT, and both the language on how protection is meant to be temporary and language on reasoning for the protection has been completely removed.
Admins shouldn't protect pages just because it's a BLP--there should be a reason behind it.  The first version doesn't exclude protecting it for some other reason than multiple page protections, and going all the way to a blanket version seems dangerous, because if an admin protects something and doesn't have a valid reason they can simply site that language and say "BLP + AFD → protection".
The original language could stand to be expanded on, but in it's current form it does not exclude other reasons for protecting a deleted BLP.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert in re the new language on protection 

message: Others have convinced me that this is an area in which admins should have some flexibility. Admins should be able to use  their tools to prevent creation of pages created for purposes of harassment, and particularly for purposes of violating privacy. However, guidelines are helpful to ensure that delete protection is not overused. I propose that WP:BLP be amended to say, "After deletion of a BLP, an article may be protected against recreation, according to the guidelines for protecting deleted pages."  WP:SALT should also be amended along the lines of, "Administrators may salt a deleted biography of a living person if they believe that the article was created for purposes of harassment, and have reason to believe that a similar article will be recreated." Putting this text in WP:SALT, which is (I think) a guideline, gives admins more flexibility than putting it in WP:BLP, which is a policy. Kla'quot 04:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BLP enforcement is everyone's business. Making salting the default actually harms the encyclopedia, because not every new editor will be able to sort out how to get rid of that 18-month-old block on Tom Black. -- nae'blis 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed compromise wording

message: In light of the proposal above to delete BLP articles unless there's consensus to keep them - a better way of solving the problem would be to be more strict about the fact that an encyclopedia is not a newspaper. People are frequently tempted to follow the latest media hype and make rather unbalanced articles about whatever CNN is talking about today, but that doesn't mean that these are encyclopedic. Everybody gets their proverbial fifteen minutes of fame, not everybody gets an encyclopedia article. >Radiant< 08:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest argument in favor of relegating an incident involving a person to a non-bio page, is that a bio page features the name of the person in the title of the article. This causes the bio to rank much higher in the search engine rankings when searching for that person's name. By the time all the internal linking to that bio is carried out inside of Wikipedia, you also have the weight of anchor-text content added to its ranking. Presto! Number one in a search for that name. I'll bet this has never been raised as an issue before. That's because Wikipedia is blissfully oblivious when considering the effects of its policies on Google's algorithms, and what that means for BLP victims. 68.89.131.72 23:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how oblivious we are, the point you're making on the Google rankings was spelled out in this guideline five years ago. Haukur 15:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am aware that it's already in policy. My point is that watching it more closely would help getting rid of a certain class of articles with BLP problems, and also that doing it this way is better than proposing to delete such articles unless there's consensus to keep them. >Radiant< 07:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, I was skimming through this discussion, and decided to jump a few pages with the intention to leave precisely that comment: IMO a problem is that many editors use an encyclopedia as if it was a newspaper, editing into it info that is too fresh, from "tomorrow", even from "today". I've been away for a while, so I'm not into WP's current mood yet, and I don't know what to propose exactly, but thoughts and ideas along this line may be fruitful. Moreover because it is about improving the use of a long standing, if often forgotten, policy, rather than creating a new one. The larger problem I foresee is than many "news events" are harmless, and it is useful to add them right away, while editors are enthusiastic about it; but other, and most BLP's news are included there, need time to settle down so that we are able to watch them from an encyclopedic point of view. - Nabla 02:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Is Not Wikinews 

message: We are now discussing at AfD the list  List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers and the question arises of which of these people are covered under BLP?  As the material discusses people who were active in adult life in 1944, probably in the age range of 20 through 60, the younger of them may still be alive. For many of them, we do have death dates, but not for all. I'll mention the information is based upon a US government source, as previous published in several books, so that the possibility of libel does not seem to apply, although IANAL. DGG 01:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not reliably sourced that a person is deceased (or patently obvious, such as that we know their birth date was in 1850), they should be considered living until shown otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1930 Census which is now public, was released in 2002.  That means the US Government considers it to be non-private 72 years after creation.  Some states have taken the view of 100 years after creation.  I don't think we need to be more strict than the governments.  By the way, I don't see the issue with why a person sufficiently important to be named in a list couldn't be determine to have already died.  If their documents are that obscure perhaps they shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. Wjhonson 03:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, they are supposed to have been spies, after all; obscurity of documents sort of comes with the profession... but doesn't make it any less notable of a profession. (That said, this particular list has issues.) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What about disappeared people?  See List_of_people_who_have_disappeared; Jimmy Hoffa is presumed to be dead, Natalee Hollaway is presumed to be living; it's not clear what stance Wikipedia takes on Michael Anthony Hughes.  How long does someone have to be vanished before we assume they are dead?  SmaleDuffin 23:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Presumption of living?