Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 8

message: Bored now...talk it out, then change.
—Phil | Talk 20:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop going on about that. It's what we do. You're suggesting instead that admins have to wait until deleted BLPs are repeatedly recreated, which is nonsense. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can compromise, something about "with a high risk of being recreated" if you like - of course that's more words. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if there is a low risk of recreation, but the consequences are more serious? Bottom line, I don't think you can 'legislate common sense', and simpler is better. Crum375 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "What if there is a low risk of recreation, but the consequences are more serious?" Excellent point! ElinorD (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) It's what we do? Who's we? Also, although the statement that "admins must have discretion" has been repeated ad nauseam, no good explanation has been provided as to why one would want to preemptively protect a deleted BLP that was created just once? What's the rationale behind it? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's what experienced admins do. That's who "we" are. Some deleted BLPs are protected against recreation immediately, often because created as an attack page; some only after repeated attempts to recreate; some never. It depends on the circumstances and on the admin's judgment about those circumstances, obviously. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but notice that it was done so without this sentence in the policy. That's what made it the experienced admin's judgment call. Putting this sentence in the policy without any clarification encourages inexperienced admins to go wild; there is nothing urging restraint, not even a pointer to the problems with doing so. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no evidence that inexperienced admins would "go wild", and there are so many ways of dealing with that problem in the unlikely case it were to happen. Don't forget, deletes (or protections) are easily overturned; on the other hand, failure to deal promptly with a serious BLP issue can have long-term serious implications for both the individuals involved, and for the Wikimedia Foundation. The policy for BLP should be written to err on the side of caution, exactly as Jimbo has explicitly stated we should do. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They're easily overturned if they're just an admin's judgment call. They're not easily overturned if they're based on this sentence in policy. If we really want to err on the side of caution we could write "First, the person must be dead." as the Brockhaus encyclopedia does it (Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 2), but we don't. Look, I'm not asking for no protection of deleted BLPs, just a pointer to a cautioning page. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I likewise support the protection of deleted BLPs, but would like the policy to provide some sort of guidance aside from "whenever someone feels like it". SV, you raise two valid issues above (attack page and attempted recreations): how about we note those in the sentence? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there may be other examples we don't think to mention. That's why we let admins use their discretion. They deal with the particulars; they know the background; if there are sockpuppets involved, they may have investigated, and so on. We can't get into specifics on a policy page. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not against codifying admin discretion ... but at least have the policy provide some sort of guidance aside from: "you can do it if you want". In what cases should they probably do it? When should they probably not do it? The purpose of policy is not to legitimise the actions of experienced admins (and I'm pretty sure there are experienced admins out there who'd disagree with you); it's to provide information and guidance as to appropriate action. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the only guidance that we have consensus enough to make as policy on this issue at this time. WAS 4.250 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, whether there's consensus that this is really the proper guidance is the wider issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WAS 4.250, the version proposed by SV provides no guidance. It just says ... "you can do it", without any specification of why or when one might want to do it. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For any of many reasons? And what would they be? If I was going to falsely accuse the BLP page of stating something ridiculous, you can rest assured that I would be more devious and write in an official tone worthy of a policy. Your response simply skirts the issue (maybe that's a sign that this is not a useful dialogue). The statement "any admin may choose to protect the page against recreation" is substantively no different from "any admin may do it" (oh, yes, it's longer and more official). It states that admins may choose to protect a page, but does not state under what factors they should consider in determining whether to do so. That is, it provides no guidance. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops! My bad. I'm sorry. My mind was totally on the BLP deletion paragraph and not at all on the salting of articles (that is what you are talking about, right?). I don't see salting as a big deal because there is no way to salt all possible permutations of a title. Say John Smith is salted. Then I can create John F. Smith or J. Smith or John Smith (actor). See? I just don't see it as anything important. Again, I'm sorry. Is there anything else I can do for you? WAS 4.250 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. I also apologise for the sarcastic undertones to my comment ... I'm very rarely devious O:-). Yes, my comment was in regard to salting, on which you raise a good point: deleting and salting Albert Q. Vespucci III won't prevent a dedicated vandal from creating Albert Q Vespucci III or Ablert Q. Vespuci 3. If by "BLP deletion paragraph" you mean the one in the section below, stating that "the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted", then I agree with that paragraph (and its wording). I only desire on that matter is that we have a mechanism whereby we may verify that the person requesting deletion is indeed the subject of the article. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 01:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mechanism for that is the same mechanism as for every other content decision - the diligence of the community. WAS 4.250 02:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Joshua, this was the section you objected to. Can you say why you feel it's not an accurate summary of the discussion here? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I didn't realize that there was that larger section above. I thought you meant the section that started on May 1st. That does seem to be an accurate summary of that consensus. I'm not happy with that, but the consensus seems pretty clear. JoshuaZ 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks. I'm not entirely happy with it myself, because I think the consensus went further than that, but I'm willing to keep it like that if others agree, and they seem to. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it's an entirely accurate summary of that discussion, honestly.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it seems like there's a sizeable opposition with legitimate concerns that weren't addressed, much of it coming after it was advertised in some areas, leading me to believe there's a lot of people who don't watch this page who disagree with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have any processes by which the subject of a biography needs to prove they are the subject. I could otherwise pretend to be say Cris Ericson and demand that my views be given greater consideration and in fact just bve pretending to be her because I want the article deleted. I see know porceesses whereby an admin even can check that the subject is who they claim to be, and that kind of verification should be done by the foundation, IMO. it certainly shouldnt be left to the blind judgement of an admin, SqueakBox 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be left to the judgment of an admin, who can confer with other admins if there's reasonable doubt. It doesn't take much to establish that, on balance of probability, you're speaking to the subject. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that what the OTRS stuff is for?  I'd trust that before a random administrative judgement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OTRS is staffed by admins. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, really?  Of course it is, Slim - it's also official and holds more weight than any random person in the midst of a discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In certain cases it is preferred that OTRS admins do not advertise the fact that an edit or deletion is being made based on information derived from OTRS e-mails. This is done to preserve privacy and to avoid the WP:OFFICE effect of drawing unwanted attention to an issue. FCYTravis 04:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Either admins are trusted to take admin actions or they're not, and any action they take is easily enough overturned. When you say you don't trust "random administrative judgement", you make it quite clear what the real issue is here. Jayjg (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can trust admins without assuming they're omnipotent. There's no way to immediately/intuitively know that an the operator of an account is who he/she says he/she is. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's talking about intuiting. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, we can trust them, and if they make a mistake, the error can easily be fixed. It's not all that hard to figure out if someone is who they say they are, and there are lots of places to go for second opinions of you're not certain. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, so why not entrust it to the one group that deals with those instead of assuming bad faith about people who are looking for alternative options? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your point. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one who's assuming bad faith of admins, Jeff. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm doing nothing of the sort. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My point is that we need a better form of verification than "This admin says so."  We have something in place that can do just that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) Jayjg, of course we trust them, but that doesn't mean they intuitively can know the identify of someone on the Internet. They're admins not telepaths. If, as you claim, it's not that hard, then please tell me how you or an admin would figure it out? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easy enough to ask for some sort of evidence, and the evidence would depend on the individual in question. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of evidence? It's not like we can demand passport numbers or the like. You can't require evidence that would constitute an invasion of privacy ... well, you can, but I'd rather Wikipedia not turn into a security agency. Much of the remaining "evidence" would be information that can easily be found online or in the article itself. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually an e-mail should be good enough. For example, if the hypothetical Professor John Anybody of the University of Florida sends you an e-mail from John.Anybody@ufl.edu, then it's pretty obvious. Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that would account for people associated with educational institutions and/or corporations, but what about John.Anybody@yahoo.com? That doesn't tell us anything. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)That sounds like a recipe for disaster IMO as actually it wouldnt be difficult to pretend to be someone else and balance of probability sounds unsatisfactory given that there are many people who have their own agenda to want to delete a bio article and it is just leaving a gaping hole whereby bad faith editors could game the system, SqueakBox 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Recipe for disaster"? Pish posh! What kind of "gaping hole" would be left if we didn't have an article on, say, Shelly Jamison, the article for which AnonEMouse received the "Barnstar of Rescue" for saving it from AfD; would Wikipedia suddenly be considered unreliable? Jayjg (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) The good faith effort of editors being deleted for absolutely no reason except that a vandal was able to fool us is a disaster. Why contribute to a project where your contributions may be randomly deleted if some vandal decides he doesn't like it, creates an account, and requests the article's deletion? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must have a very strange definition of "disaster"; this kind of stuff happens all the time, things are speedy deleted, prodded, AfDd etc. and the creators think they shouldn't have been. There are lots of ways of fixing this in the rare case when it's done in error, and the damage if we don't delete when we should have can be huge. Exactly how often do you think we actually get the subjects of articles asking for the article to be deleted? It's extremely rare, and usually well justified when it does happen. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking abou twhat the creators think should have happened. I'm talking about deleting articles on the mistaken premise that the subject requested them when the person who requested deletion really is Whilly on Wheels. When we start treating vandals with such deference, that is a disaster. As for "extremely rare" ... I'm quite sure it will become less rare if we start deleting whenever someone claiming to be the subject requests it. In fact, I'm feeling a bit Isaac Asimov-ish at the moment. Hmm ... Now, that said, I do not oppose the wording propsed above by SlimVirgin (i.e., that admins should give some weight to the subject's request). I'm only insisting that we have some mechanism for figuring out whether the person requesting deletion is indeed the subject or some innovative vandal. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  (edit conflict x3) SlimVirgin, the wording proposed above is not something I'd object to. I'd only suggest two changes. First, we should be sure that the subject of the article has indeed asked for deletion. If User:George W. Bush requests the deletion of "his" article, we oughtn't necessarily take it at face value. Second, the last sentence starting with "Material should never" seems redundant ... WP:BLP applies to biographical content in any article, so moving biographical content from a biographical to non-biographical article does not remove that content from the scope of WP:BLP. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec3) I don't think "on balance of probability, you're speaking to the subject" is enough or even accurate. If you believe my hypothetical claim that I'm Nicole Kidman or Helmut Kohl, then you're very much in error. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should never have policies that are easy to game, indeed making policies as hard as possible to game is surely vital in policy construction. Giving potential power to bad faith users in this way is what would be the recipe for disaster not whether the article on Ericson or other marginally notable people remain. Its obvious in a cse like Brandt nbut cases like Ericson (who someone using her name started the article and then an ip address claiming to be her wantyed it deleted. it could be equally harmful if the subject of an article was presumed not to be the subject and had no way of verifying their identity, SqueakBox 21:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough, please. Admins know how to determine whether someone is who they claim to be. Not 100 percent of course, but good enough for our purposes. This isn't the UN. All these protection/deletion decisions can be undone in an instant. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, yes.  In reality, of course not, and you know that as well as any of us do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in reality these things can be undone in an instant. Keep in mind, the harm done by an erroneous deletion is, well, absolutely none, but the harm done by a failure to delete can be huge. Again, we're not talking about the George W. Bush or Stephen Hawking articles here. Jayjg (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reality, the hoops a typical user would have to go through to get such an article unlocked are often barely worth the trouble.  It's easy to sit there and say "yeah, just one click, all set," but we both know these things don't work that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the typical user can't persuade people to suppport him, it probably means the article should be protected/deleted/whatever the issue is. You're all for consensus when it supports you; when not, you despise it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's with the dishonest attacks, Slim?  What the hell?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nonsense. This is about article deletion and protection, which is quite rare compared to article protection. Moreover, it is about article deletion after the subject asks for it to be deleted. How often does it happen - once a year? Twice? Maybe it will even rise to ten times a year, one day. Oh, the horrors! Imagine if two of those deletions really maybe shouldn't have happened, and now our Shelly Jamison article is locked and protected. How will Wikipedia ever be taken seriously as an encyclopedia? Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, I think you are simply wrong. The harm done by an erroneous deletion of an article is not non-existent: (A) it discourages good-faith contributors and (B) it creates an environment where the addition of material becomes pointless (after all, it's subject to random erroneous deletions). Also, who cares whether the article is Shelly Jamison or someone else? One good article on a notable person is as valid as any other. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, an encyclopedia that deletes perfectly good content out of ... well, I'll try remain civil. Wikipedia will not be taken seriously if it has the self-preservation instinct of a kamikaze. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For me failyure to set a process for subject verification is in itself enough reason to consider rejecting giving extra weight to the subject of an article, SqueakBox 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are clearly more than 2 people who want their articles deleted, I can think of half a dozen that I know of myself, SqueakBox 22:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This policy isn't going to be handed over to extreme inclusionists and process fetishists. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be handed off to ANY group. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)It shouldnt be handed over to anybody, extreme inclusionists or extreme deletionists, nor to people who want to see articles deleted and to achieve their ends pretend to be someone they are not, SqueakBox 22:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reality is all wikipedia editors are treated equally and have the right to be anonymous so we are absolutely moving into new territory by saying that anonymous ediotrs can claim to be the subject of an article and with no verifying of their claim to be who they are, leaving admins to guess, we will give theis particular class of editor more rights than everybody else is a trend I find extremely disturbing and, by offering illicit power will attract the bad faith user to game the system in this new way, SqueakBox 22:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is saying that; your interpretation is ridiculous, and I'm going to have to stop responding here. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: SV, no policy is being "handed over" to anybody, in part because none of us own this policy. I also resent the implication that anyone who disagrees with you is either an "extreme inclusionst" or "process fetishist". The wording you've proposed above requires some sort of mechanism to ensure that random claims of identity are not unquestioningly accepted as true or accepted/rejected on the basis of some over-the-Internet intuition. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO setting up such verification is to defend the reputation of our project and not to do so will, IMO, weaken our reputation as a viable project, SqueakBox 22:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Performing this verification, to a high level of certainty, is the job of the admin receiving the request. Each case is different, and we need to let common sense dictate the specifics. Crum375 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common sense sounds vague and we dont necessarily even give the admins the tools whereby they can verify. We musnt assume that all admins are adults or capable of verifying such a thing and by putting procedures whereby verification can be ensured (in my opinion through the media foundation) is merely protecting the integrity of the project. Foe an individual admin to opaquely investigate is a recipe for disaster. There are many tasks we can trust to admins to do but I dont believe this is one of them, and especially without check user resources etc, SqueakBox 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If things work out as you suggest this would be okay, ie the decisions being in the hands of the community and publicly debated rather than behind the scenes and the repsonsibility of a single admin, SqueakBox 23:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe that identifying somebody as the subject of the article is a serious problem. Subjects who wish to identify themselves shall find ways of doing so. Email is not the sole form of communication upon which people can rely. Furthermore, the section in question only states that the wishes of the subject should be "taken into account", and goes out of its way to avoid stating what weight should be placed on those wishes. It seems to me the section serves as an effective reference point for administrators faced with these questions, and the rest of the section makes important statements about how to view the question of the fate of deleted material. The real point of the section is: deleted material may be placed in other entries, but only so long as it still conforms to BLP policy. This is a valuable contribution to policy. FNMF 01:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This is simple and sensible; the wording should actually be strengthened. Marskell 07:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The section in question

message: A point which hasn't been addressed here is that the concern for notability is perhaps producing a bit of a bias towards inclusion of not-all-that-notable people. For instance, here we have Analog Devices, an article about a semiconductor manufacturer. Maybe it's notable and maybe it's not; there's not a whole lot of info on the page that didn't come off the company website. But be that as it may, there's an article on AD's CEO, Jerald G. Fishman. Now, this article says next to nothing except to drop some ownership info about how he's Jewish and from a school in the Bronx. So let's say that eventually there is a change at the top, and Mr. Fishman gets replaced by, say, Mr. Troutman. OK ,then, is Mr. Troutman now notable, and Mr. Fishman no longer notable? I'm going to guess that most people would say, "no". But let us further suppose that the article on AD hadn't been created until after Mr. Troutman succeeded Mr. Fishman. Well, judging by the links to Mr. Fishman's article, he wouldn't have one. His article was only created because he is presently the CEO of AD, and it's pretty likely that, barring some catastrophe on his watch, his article is going to remain the stubby thing that it is now. But anyone with a grudge against him will have a forum for their denunciations or anything else negative that they want to say about him, pretty much forever. Right now these articles have to be policed, which may or may not be effective. Semi-protection at least cuts this down a bit; speedy deletion of anything insufficiently sourced as to demonstrate notability would be even better. Mangoe 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at Jerald G. Fishman. If this article were up for AfD, I would vote Delete. Although it's sourced, the sources are just lists detailing his salary, board positions and so on, which I wouldn't class as non-trivial coverage to meet WP:BIO. I don't believe that CEOs and so on possess notability ex officio; unless they meet the primary notability criterion, they're non-notable. So feel free to put that article up for AfD, along with the many others which fall in the grey area of notability. But you haven't shown anything wrong with existing policy and practice. Walton Need some help? 19:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a list of BLPs somewhere on WP? These things would be a lot easier to keep track of, police, and make sure they were up to policy, if you could look at a list of them. SBHarris 23:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe :Category:Living people is the best list, but of course it's not complete, and way too big to deal with as a normal human. (btw -- I'm one of those people who keeps putting people into Living People and then changing them, darn case sensitivity) --Myke Cuthbert 23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I don't have that much of a problem with current notability standards, then, but the practice seems to be to ignore them. Of the ~30 entries at the top of the page on :Category:American chief executives, maybe four are unquestionably notable (Dick Cheney, Bill Gates, Wesley Clark, and Louis V. Gerstner, Jr.. Many of them are only "X is CEO of Y." It wouldn't surprise me to find that related categories are worse. I could put all but those four named through AfD, but I'm sure very many of them would be contested. Many people seem to think that simply having citations is good enough. That's one of the things that makes me think we need a more aggressive process to clear these out. Mangoe 01:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another reason why no consensus should not be a delete, because apparently the notability of Lee Iaccoca and Steve Jobs and many more in that category are perhaps not above failing to achieve a consensus. Carlossuarez46 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are thirteen footnotes in Iaccoca's article, and forty-six in Jobs's article. Attempts to get either deleted ought to get speedily kept as bad faith nominations. Mangoe 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why inclusion and semi-protection are linked

message: Does anyone have a proposed standard of what is "contentious" such that it may be removed (positive or negative) from BLPs?  There are no shortage of attribution of ancestry and religion to various BLPs without proper sourcing; should ancestry and religion be per se contentious (my proposed view) or only "contentious" ancestries and religions (figure out an NPOV way to figure that out)? I'd like to hear from some people before I go and delete unsourced "Living Person is half German American and half English American" and "Living Person is a Methodist" or the similar categories into which Living Person is placed.  If the consensus here is that unsourced ancestry and religion attributes are contentious, that's what WP:BLP says should be done; if the consensus here is that we don't care whether a Methodist is mislabelled as a Scientologist, or a Hindu as a Buddhist, or a Muslim as a Wiccan, or a person of German ancestry mislabelled as being of Jewish ancestry, or an Armenian-American as a Turkish-American, etc.... then I'd like to see the policy explicitly stated here. Carlossuarez46 02:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Statements that aren't properly sourced can theoretically be removed from articles.  That applies not just to biographies but all articles.  Ideally all statements in Wikipedia should have proper citations.  Of course, sometimes you have statements that the consensus seems to agree is probably true but that you don't immediately have a good citation for.  In that case it's probably ok to simply tag the uncited statement with a clean-up tag so that the reader knows "this statement is probably true but hasn't yet been fully verified."  Dugwiki 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, ancestry and religion aren't "per se" contentious. If you disagree, go remove Michael Jordan from :Category:African American basketball players on the grounds that no source for this being his ancestry is cited, and see what happens to you! :-) (It's a Wikipedia:Featured article, by the way.) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to Minder's comment below, I'll add that something being a Feature article doesn't mean it's perfect. On rare occasion I've removed certain categories from featured articles because the categories were added without any verification or sourcing in the article.  Dugwiki 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not the best example since there are probably a billion sources verifying that he's african american.  If you tried to add the unsourced claim that he's of Sudanese descent (or better yet, try "scottish"), I'd bet that would be removed quickly per BLP.  I definitely think unsourced claims of race or religion can arguably be called contentious - if they aren't or can't be sourced, why put them in the article?  --Minderbinder 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For many people, their ancestry and religion is indeed a touchy subject. If you can't source it, don't include it. In addition, especially in terms of religion, if there's not a reliable source with the subject self-identifying as a member of that religion, it should be carefully attributed ("X states that Y is an Episcopalian", NOT "Y is an Episcopalian", unless Y clearly self-identifies as such.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, consensus obviates the need for sourcing. Heck, people think so-and-so is Fooian, so label him/her such. Hmmmm... And AnonEMouse brings up another good point: if someone were to diligently follow the precepts of the BLP rules by deleting the unsourced statements, then they'll see what "happens to [them]". Yes, there are probably lots of sources about Michael Jordan; but take something more ambiguous: Bruce Willis' religion. According to our article he may or may not be, or maybe once was, Lutheran. So someone (well-meaning no doubt) puts him in that category. I take it that consensus is that once Lutheran always Lutheran? Willis is not unique; Rod Carew comes to mind, but there are probably many others whose position on religion has never been publicly stated by them and even some of the vague statements "I was raised XXXX" hardly equates to being XXX unless we adopt the once=always approach universally (unwise). Seraphimblade's approach is probably the best we can do in the interim (presuming that X is a WP:RS); to facilitate all BLP issues, perhaps in-line citations should be mandated for all BLP's. Ancestry is less susceptible to change – but notable people sometimes find out one or more parents they thought were biological aren't, see Orlando Bloom as an example – so presumably once reliable sourcing is found the data will remain "good". It's just that nearly all biographies from reliable sources rarely include ancestral material, probably for the good reason that it doesn't freaking matter in 90% of cases; which begs the question on why WP insists on classifying people on ancestry that for many XXX-Americans is mixed, not relevant to their notability, up-bringing, or day-to-day lives, and often comes more from anecdotes than from reliable sources given the time passage since emigration of their ancestors.  If we take the long view all Americans may be African-Americans (see Out of Africa theory). After some considerable thought on this (including all the various AfDs of intersections of ethnicity and occupation) I think the time may be right to delete all ethnicity categories. Carlossuarez46 00:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contentiousness

message: Might want to link instances of the word "eventualism" on this policy page, to explain what it means. - dcljr (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eventualism 

message: Is it a violation of WP:BLP to imply that somebody is the subject of an allegation when it is actually the case that whatever was said "about them" was said in a statement made "by them"? 
For example would it violate WP:BLP to describe somebody as being an alleged homosexual when they publicly came out, or an alleged terrorist when they openly professed to be a terrorist, in some manned that passes WP:V/WP:RS.
Also, would it violate WP:BLP to describe somebody as being "an alleged ...." when they openly profess to be "..." but the existence of "..." is the subject of doubt. For example, "X is allegedly a member of secret society Y" when they have said that they are a member in a WP:V source, but there is WP:V'able debate as to whether or not Y actually exists.
perfectblue 16:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Statements a subject made, which are reported in reliable sources may be quoted and those quotes are never in violation of this article.  In fact the more bizarre the statement, the more noteworthy it is. Wjhonson 05:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question isn't whether those statements should be reported, it's more about how it should be phrased, particularly in regard to things like article titles, disambiguation pages, and categories.  Is "allege" a dirty word, including when people make unproven statements about themselves?  When a guy says "I have psychic powers", best case is to just quote that and attribute it.  But for an article lead or disambig page, there has been lots of recent debate over whether it's OK to say "X is an alleged/purported/self-described psychic" or "X is a psychic".  A current example is List of alleged contactees, a list of people claiming to have talked with aliens - there's a proposed move to "List of contactees" based on an objection to "alleged".  --Minderbinder 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-described works. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view: when someone self-describes (identifies?) as gay, libertarian, Methodist, alcoholic, or something inherently difficult for an outside observer to know, we just accept the quotation as a RS and say "X is a Methodist"; when someone self-describes as something quite unlikely, say as a martian, the savior, the love child of Napoleon and Queen Victoria, the real Elvis (he's not dead, after all), king of the freaking universe, etc., a healthy dose of scepticism is warranted and we can write "X claims to be a martian" rather than "X is a martian"; and when someone descibes himself/herself in relation to a particular or supposed event or ability, a psychic, a contactee, a "victim" of something, able to jump tall buildings in a single bound, etc., again a healthy scepticism is in order: "X claims to be a psychic". Carlossuarez46 22:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations 

message: Posted on VP
----
Non evident risk in articles lacking critical references
Related: [Risk disclaimer]               [Manual of Style]               [Biographies of living persons]
Terms: Non Evident Risk – a risk that that has an established reality, but which within a given context is not apparent.
Current Position: Wikipedia has well established practice in how it approaches ‘risk’ and this is addressed through the use of the Disclaimer statements.
Need for Change: The matter of risk applies predominantly to articles dealing with some form of human activity and in most of those articles the risk that attaches to the activity discussed is entirely self evident, for example Rock Climbing will be understood by an reasonable person as an inherently risky activity. However there are some articles where the tone of the article and/or the absence of critical references, coupled with a received wisdom regarding the activity which endorses it as risk free, effectively disguising the risk even where medical, scientific or reasoned observational evidence suggests that risk exists.
Scope for Change: Any change would necessarily be limited to matters of established physical and psychological risk, as would be understood by as such by any reasonable person. 
It seems unlikely that there would be any appetite amongst editors to change the way that Disclaimers are currently used, although it would not be overly problematic to introduce a more prominent display of the Risk Disclaimer for articles where critical references are lacking.
The obvious response is to say that relevant articles be improved by the inclusion of critical references, however without policy change this may not always be achievable as editors may be reluctant to include references which do not precisely link to the subject of the article. (see example)
A further and unequivocally desirable improvement also depends upon an improvement in reference discipline – that is to ensure references and links to organisations which are active in risk reduction in an appropriate field. Here we can return to the example of Rock Climbing where numerous sport bodies actively promote and discuss the reduction of risk in an inherently risky pursuit.
Example of a number of associated problem articles:  [] []
The core article is a Biography of a Living Person and although a number of critical references are included, none address an activity which is presented in positive terms within the core article and six associated articles – that is the practice of meditation, an activity which the subject of the Biography has a long history of promoting. Neither the core article, nor the associated articles use a wikilink to the Wikipedia article [], which itself does include an Adverse Effects section which clearly demonstrates potential risks in meditational practice. Clearly there are editors who have decided that there is some constraint upon linking to the Meditation article, demonstrating either that there is a need to challenge the thinking behind that execise of constraint, or otherwise if wikipedia rules require such constraint, then to re-examine the how the Risk Disclaimer is displayed within certain articles.
Nik Wright2 15:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but... what is this saying? -Amarkov moo! 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess Nik Wright2 is saying that the article on Prem Rawat should say that Meditation is dangerous. I disagree. Following that logic, articles on sportsmen should say that waterskiiing, mountain climbing, snow boarding are dangerous, articles on doctors should say that surgery is dangerous, articles on military figures should say that war is very, very dangerous... That's the role of the article on the subject, not for every article on anything linked to the subject. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, re-read that. Maybe NW2 is saying that the Prem Rawat article should wikilink to meditation and doesn't. OK, I can buy that. Linked. :-). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that's all that's being said, it's quite an nonobvious and wordy way to do it. And inherent risks are in the eye of the beholder should we be adding risk factors to articles such as Adultery which doesn't mention risks of disease, and only tangential discussion of eternal damnation.  So, at the risk of WP:BEANS, <sarcasm>should we behoove ourselves to add risk factors to all articles, like adultery and link them in BLP's, so that Bill Clinton, an admitted adulterer, whose article doesn't now link to adultery, would be ameneded to include such a link so that readers can follow that link and will know that such behavior has risks.</sarcasm> Phooey! Carlossuarez46 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Relevance to BoLP

message: Do we need multiple sources for EVERY item on a BLP? For example, say someone is accused of being a murderer in source 1. Source 2 then reports that he is accused of murder. Now, we have two sources that say he is being accused of murder so we can say he is being accused of murderer in WP. Now say that source 3 says that used a knife (and say that source 3 is the only one that says he used a knife). Is it acceptable to say that the accused murderer used a knife in a BLP in WP, even though only a single source says so? I appreciate your comments. Sparkzilla 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of sources is not an always the issue. The quality of the source always is. And your example above is a good example of walking to close to WP:SYN for comfort. Look at it this way: If the murder accusation and the use of a specific weapon was notable, it will be reported in multiple reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on use of multiple sources in BLP

message: Okay, I want to ask about this: it is relevant to the subject's notability; criterion again.  I'll admit I've realised an article I've been working on is violating this criterion - the article Peter Goldreich uses Peter's homepage to source that he was a Ph.D. student of Thomas Gold, without which I can only source that he was a student of Gold's but not for what degree.  Now - it's hardly a big deal, and Peter's unlikely to sue me for something that's true - and therefor even less likely to win - nor is he likely to be traumatised by people knowing something he puts on his homepage.  So I ask - 
And should it be changed to be more explicit? WilyD 17:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Self published by subject

message: To what extent, if any, ought BLP be construed to apply to the recently deceased?Proabivouac 09:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first line of the "Rationale" for WP:BLP is: "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life." This is the basis of the policy requirements to edit sensitively and conservatively, etcetera. This rationale clearly does not mean that negative material must be excluded, but it stipulates that unsourced negative material, or non-encyclopaedic material (tabloid allegations, etc.), must be removed. This stipulation is not only about defamation laws, but rather, as the rationale states, is due to the fact that Wikipedia can affect people's lives. And, even though this rationale states that information can affect the subject's life, it is also clearly the case that it can affect those people close to or surrounding the subject. Thus there is a difference between writing about Henry VIII and writing about somebody who has recently died, and who may have a spouse, children, etcetera. Wikipedia editors ought to be sensitive wherever the potential to negatively affect people's lives is clear. Again, this does not mean negative material must be excluded. But this requirement is a very good reason why, in my opinion, WP:BLP continues to apply to those who have died but whose relatives and associates remain alive. There is nothing to be gained for the encyclopaedia by asserting that this policy does not apply in such situations. FNMF 01:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Simply, the recent dead will often have living relatives, business associates and friends (and enemies). Any contentious material (that which is disallowed, or needs examiniation, under BPL) may involve one or more of those parties, which raises the possibility or irate phone calls and (threatened) legal action from them. Applying BPL to the recent dead allows editors time to ensure what is written is suitably sourced/referenced, especially when a death is the catalyst of "kiss and tell" type stories (which need to be treated very carefully anyway, IMO). LessHeard vanU 12:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Wikipedia:Don't add tabloid style crap to any articles at all? Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think WP:DATSCAAA will ever fly as a policy or guideline, but as far as style goes; I sincerely hope not. Mind you sometimes the tabloid press will uncover pearls simply as they are prepared to swim amongst the swill. Sometimes legitimate content can be found. It is preferable to wait for the quality press to catch up and publish, though, before it is cited. LessHeard vanU 20:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently dead people's bios are no different than other articles; someone "near" to the subject may be p.o.'d by the contents; this is very different than the subject being p.o.'d at his/her own bio. Take for example, something negative in an article about an organization or a country - a member of that organization or citizen of that country may take offense. Just source, source, source no different than other articles.  I don't see a policy reason why critical but sourced material of the recently dead and long-time dead differs. A RS saying that Gerald Ford (recently dead) was a lousy president and the same source saying Franklin Pierce (long-time dead) was one too seems equally includable. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quantity (if not the quality) of reference sources are considerably different between the recently dead and the long time dead. When Ford died there was an item from every US TV network, and I would suggest from all major non-US broadcasters, national and international periodical publishers likely carried a piece (either inhouse or syndicated), and every newspaper in the Western World (and most beyond) carried an article. What sources do we have for Pierce? A couple of biographies, correspondence in the White House library, some mentions in other peoples biographies, a few worthy books about his life and Presidency, and... ? All of the surviving text has been filtered through the perceptions of the intervening years anyway. No, recently dead people suffer the same problem as the living - the sheer diversity of sources and opinion that is available; thus we have to be more careful than those who died before we were born. LessHeard vanU 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The reverse side is that the demise of a notable person is very likely marked by a sudden increase of literature about said person, resulting in a corresponding increase of useable references. Also, this potential resource of good information may not last too long. It would be a tardy editor who didn't make good use (under the appropriate guidelines and rules) of the available material. LessHeard vanU 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The very recent dead

message: Hi.
I was going to add the following bit of rationale for one of the rules about self-published sources: "* it is not unduly self-serving (this is due more to issues of general neutrality than actual harm to the subject)" (rationale underlined.) What do you think? I'm going here for approval to add the rationale since this is an official policy page. mike4ty4 20:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm I am not so sure that adding that sentence helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding rationale? 

message: Has anyone seen this? Is there somewhere to report this kind of thing? I don't want to find I'm the only person defending this particular article. AndyJones 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mumbai underworld]] 

message: People have now started to use this policy in a terrible way. Apparently, you don't even have to give a coherent reason why something is a BLP violation anymore; you just have to declare an article disgusting, and anyone who does not agree with you is being stupid and/or misinterpreting BLP. Oh, and the community doesn't get to decide what's a BLP violation; only admins who delete BLP violations may do that. -Amarkov moo! 23:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can bring any specific issues at the BLP noticeboard, where these will be reviewed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific issue I have in mind is actually going fine without that, but the problem I have is that this kind of event is starting to be routine. -Amarkov moo! 04:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is absurd 

message: I've edited this sentence: "This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion, grace and understanding."
* "compassion and understanding" -> "compassion, grace and understanding"
The message is that we're to avoid brutality of expression.  Our articles are never to be hatchet jobs, and graceless writing should be a warning sign that we're not treating our living human subject, be he a mass murderer or a rape victim, with humanity. --Tony Sidaway 04:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ann Coulter article is a longstanding hatchet job, endorsed and justified by admins. We understand that it's OK because they don't like what she says, but that doesn't change its status as a hatchet job. Lou Sander 12:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grace

message: This policy should require material to be moved to the notable event in cases where the event is notable and person not except for the event. I have asked SlimVirgin to come up with the actual words to add to the policy. She is really good at this sort of thing. WAS 4.250 08:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move material to the notable event

message: The text is as follows:
Remember: not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. That a person receives a namecheck in a larger article about a subject that involves that person does not automatically warrant a redlink, or a biographical article for that person. We should not present things in a way that the sources do not. If sources for biographical information only cover the person in the context of something else (such as an event or a court case), and are not wholly separable from sources for that something else, then there should not be a biographical article in Wikipedia separate from an article on the something else. Court cases, crimes, conflicts, and controversies, for examples, should be presented as unified articles that involve all sides, not as individual articles, pretending to be biographies, that present each of the sides separately. Not only does this give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, it is also generally wasteful and creates redundancy and additional maintenance overhead In such cases a redirect is usually the best option.
For discussion - this seems unnecessary and I don't believe accurately reflects the undue weight clause anyway.  Furthermore, it appears to be added simply due to someone's opinion at a DRV, an opinion that is contrary to the current status of things there anyway.  So instead of trying to force it in, here's a good place to discuss it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your substantive objection to it?--Docg 12:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It assumes too much, mostly.  Part of the harm is knowing the context it's being presented in, where the subject of the article, who gained prominence due to a contentious incident, is having a redirect forced due to this sort of thought process.  The problem, of course, is assuming that if a person gains prominence due to one extremely noteworthy thing, any extra unrelated notability can be discarded.  That doesn't reflect this policy, it doesn't reflect NPOV, and it doesn't reflect community consensus or encyclopedia building.  In some cases, a redirect is proper.  That should be discussed, not simply assumed and codified into policy, especially without discussion given the contentious issues we're dealing with currently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sooner or later you are going to have to accept that consensus and policy are against you on BLPs. I can't follow your objection for now. What was inserted was for guidance and left room for discussion on individual case. But biographies are for subjects for whom we can write biographies, however they became notable people. We don't have biographies if all we can say is 'child was switched a birth and then disappears from the public record.'--Docg 12:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, policy articles should be edited after careful consideration, not to support your side in a current debate depending on that policy. There does not seem to be consensus, given the DRV debate. If there is, it can be put in after things have cooled down. The way, the truth, and the light 12:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup.  Uncle G gave it careful consideration (he is exceptionally good at that), and his words at that DRV debate are (as usual for Uncle G) exceptionally well-reasoned, go to core policy, and clarify that which many of us do by insitinct.  Careful consideration having been given, in they go. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Is policy against my current belief?  Absolutely, but I have no problems with following it.  I'm currently in line with the consensus on BLPs, which is what's codified here, and not this section above.  I'm sorry you can't parse my objection, how can I make it clearer? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It just clarifies WP:UNDUE. Redirects should be the standard way to deal with single-event "notability". Kusma (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really doesn't.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It really does. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious how not writing about the only incident a person is known for, whether positive or negative, gives undue weight... if article go by what is written about a person, then wouldn't the weight be accurate?  Maybe I'm missing something.  Milto LOL pia 16:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Joe Smith is the person who did (abysmally foolish thing)" versus "(Abysmally foolish thing) was an event which occurred in year, it was done by Joe Smith".  I see a pretty clear difference in weight there. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:COATRACK is not a policy or guideline, and frankly, it doesn't really make much sense. The problem it's ostensibly trying to address is one I've never seen on Wikipedia, but by the end of the essay, it's changed into a restatement of WP:UNDUE. The way, the truth, and the light 13:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you see, this is Wikipedia, we don't assess an argument in project page solely by whether it's policy or not, we read it and see what argument it makes. WP:COATRACK makes a valid point about articles which exist for a purpose other than to document the purported subject.  In this case, that's absolutely true - the Duke guys really really want an article on this woman, including every single last piece of dirt they can dig up.  But what you're supposed to do is read the linked pages, which are philosophical arguments made by established editors, and then come back, not just say "bah, not policy, ignore", because that's just Wikilawyering and a waste of everyone's time. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's some bad faith you're putting out there regarding people's motives, y'know?  Assuming that people who want and see an encyclopedic topic in the person in question like that isn't helpful, and, more importantly, isn't true.  Established editors on both sides are making coherent arguments on the topic, and no one is more important than anyone else. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:AAGF. The argument was invalid for the reason stated.  I was trying to help.  Guy (Help!) 15:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to assume good faith when people attempt to change policy in the midst of two ongoing controversial discussions.  Evidence to the contrary and all that.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody's changing policy, this is a clarification of how many people currently interpret policy.  Quite different.  If you want to see unilateral creation of policy, look right back at the beginning of this page.  That is what I call a policy change!  Guy (Help!) 19:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a change.  This has nothing to do with an interpretation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Folks, don't edit war over this. I protected the page for 30 hours, please use that time to discuss and reach a consensus. (H) 13:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we don't have enough information to write a decent biography we need either a redirect or a short note explaining how the person was involved in the larger incident. Fred Bauder 13:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And in unclear cases, are we supposed to go to AfD, or delete first and then review if needed? Trebor 13:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I for one like the addition.  It's articulate, and explains how to handle some touchy situations in a sensible way.  Mangojuicetalk 14:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crystal Gail Mangum was the one who lied and ruined the lives of three college students; it's not quite murder, but it was certainly something over which she had full control. Horologium talk - contrib 03:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * Yes it is a good question.  I would say that we should take our cue from the reliable sources, as usual.  For example, there are whole books about Myra Hindley, you could make a compelling case for her notability transcending the crimes even while being founded on them. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * On a side note, I agree that there is a line between "singe-event notability" and someone who is the focus of a set of stories over an extended length of time.  I think this section is realy aimed at those who qualify under the "15 min of fame". ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 23:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new section people are putting in 

message: I skimmed the page and it doesn't look like there are any special provisions for anonymous subjects (like Lootie).  Maybe there should be a special section on it somewhere?  I'm sure there'd be differing standards of some kind.  Milto LOL pia 16:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Star Wars kid.  The young boy's name has been removed from the article, although the sources (some of which name him) remain.  I think this is a useful template for producing articles about anonymous individuals.  Note that the article does not provide a picture of Star Wars kid (although a professionally produced spoof is illustrated).  --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous subjects 

message: I suggest the addition of "If a living person is only notable for a very few seperate and distinct things which can be adequately covered in seperate articles and sufficient personal biographical information to write an adequate biography is lacking from published reliable sources, then the bio article should be a disambig page as suggested at Talk:Daniel Brandt#Proposal." or something like it. WAS 4.250 17:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could just make it clear that it's not a thorough biography, just a summary of some events.  Brandt's entire article only covers his public activities, from a glance at the TOC.  Even a privacy activist shouldn't have much to complain about if we're only publicizing things he sought attention for anyway. The essence of summary style is pointing to main articles with brief pieces pulled together. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well. Brandt did actually have some very cogent criticism of the Wikipedia article about him, and it was precisely based on the fact that there is not enough public material available to produce a properly sourced biographical article about him.  Insofar as his activism forms the core of a accountability activism-related article, it may be more appropriate to place the material in such an article with a suitable redirect, than to produce a somewhat slanted picture of the man through the lens of his activism. So while reserving comment on WAS 4.250's proposal, I think I can see his point. --Tony Sidaway 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Aesthetically, I don't like it.  The thought isn't crazy, but the execution is really ugly.  For someone like Brandt, who's involved in so much (apparently) notable stuff, it's hard - a highly "summary style" biography with links might look okay, but the bullet list - just looks ugly. WilyD 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thinki that just means Brandt would fail the proposed test - if it can't be done simply and neatly then it is probably the wrong solution for that article. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested addition

message: No doubt this has been suggested before. Is there any consensus on the idea? A significant potential downside is that if the subject themselves shows up anonymously they'll not be able to edit. But a template can illuminate on the steps needed to edit. Workable? Marskell 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should be carefuly with biographies, but that stance would be against one of the only actual rules of Wiki projects. Semiprotection would be justified if there were an established problem with anon contributions per WP:PROT but without that, it's not necessary. Mangojuicetalk 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an established problem with anon contributions to BLPs per WP:PROT—anons are most likely to post vandalism and unsourced POV. Of course, any restriction on anon contributions affects a primary foundation issue—this isn't an idea we could institute tomorrow. But the existence of the protection policy has already established that restriction can occur. Marskell 18:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Statistical fallacy - just because most vandalism comes from anonymous users does not mean that most anonymous edits are vandalism. I'm pretty sure this is a non-starter, but I said the same thing about :Category:Living people, so what do I know? -- nae'blis 19:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say most anonymous edits are vandalism and I didn't mean to imply that that's the principal concern. It is libel, not vandalism (in the "graffiti" sense), that is a clear and present danger. Editors with accounts don't generally post it, and can be blocked quickly if they do. Marskell 19:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What I meant was, if there were an established problem with anon contributions on that particular page.  You have to look page by page here.  I can imagine that an unpopular local politician (*cough cough*) might draw a lot of inappropriate criticism, while the same would not be true for some semi-notable musician or sports figure.  Mangojuicetalk 19:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protecting semi-notable BLPs as a matter of course 

message: Can you anonymously edit your own bio? An anon (146.209.130.1) which who is lists as being owned by Koch Industries, Inc. has been editing Koch bios, is there any policy on this? In all fairness, it's not clear if this is someone editing their own bio, or their subordinate, but the question stands. Pdbailey 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're looking for is WP:COI.  Mangojuicetalk 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  anon self edits, what to do? 

message: Some users think that BLP is a reason for deleting articles without comment or process.  This is just plain wrong - it is giving people the excuse to delete something they think is not worthy of inclusion here rather than because it contains content that shouldn't be reported about people.  At the very least all such activities should be logged so that other admins can check over the deleted edit history and retrieve content where necessary.  violet/riga (t) 09:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:Log/delete. --bainer (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be ridiculous - who the hell has the time to spend their days trawling though the deltion log. ViridaeTalk 12:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - such deletions are lost in the masses there.  violet/riga (t) 12:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then use the text search function in your browser to look for certain words used in deletion summaries. --bainer (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be so covert and up to individuals to come along and argue about.  We should not have a system where anyone can delete articles based on their interpretation of the article content and the BLP policy.  violet/riga (t) 12:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then in that case we need to abolish admins, or else replace them all with bots. --bainer (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're really trying to help the situation with comments like that.  violet/riga (t) 14:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not. Discretion is a major part of BLP deletions. Most of these articles need to quietly vanish with as few more eyes hitting them as possible. Phil Sandifer 12:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When an article has been on for three years and mirrored around the net?  I think you're overplaying the impact it would cause to have a page linking to red-linked articles that have been deleted because of BLP!  Just doing that would mean there is at least some form of process that admins must follow rather than hitting "Random article" and deleting them.  violet/riga (t) 12:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do me a favor. Take one of the articles you undeleted yesterday. Google the person's name. See what comes up as the first or second hit. That's why we do not and cannot mess around with this. Our articles have major real-world effects. We became a top website. This isn't a game or a little project to see how good an encyclopedia we can build anymore. This is "oh shit, we're in a position to cause major harm to somebody." So yes. We should kill BLP violations as fast as possible. The end. Phil Sandifer 13:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to first show why they are BLP violations. And thus far, with the exception of CGM (which was fairly whiffy) everyone has failed to do so. using BLP as a blunt club to get rid of articles YOUDON'TLIKE is what is pissing everyone off. ViridaeTalk 13:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto on Phil's comments. Marskell 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: They're BLP violations because they say things that shouldn't be said on Wikipedia. It's difficult to tell you what these things are without defeating the purpose of the deletion. Phil Sandifer 13:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC)Both of these positions have some merit - articles that violate BLP should be dealt with immediately (although historically WP:OFFICE's response was to cut the article down to Johnny Nobody is a person and protect).  But there does need to be some oversight - some at least quasi-transparent oversight process.  Obviously on what can be a delicate matter the process needs to reflect this.  I don't know what that process should be, but it should exist. WilyD 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, the process is that the deletions get discussed by an ad hoc committee of whoever is there in the Wikipedia admins channel on IRC. It prevents rouge deletions, gives a few pairs of eyes, but keeps it to an unlogged and ephemeral medium where it doesn't do any more damage. Phil Sandifer 14:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You might have noticed that I am admin, can view the deleted pages and STILL strongly assert the lack of a BLP violation. ViridaeTalk 14:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you are blinded by the discussions but you are clearly not reading what I have suggested here.  What you are replying to is the matter of deletion, while I am clearly stating that the articles can be deleted, but not without any form of log of its existence and subsequent deletion.  The people that worked on the article deserve to know that it is a (supposed) BLP violation and should have the chance to fix the situation.  violet/riga (t) 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience there have not been problems with people who work on an article noticing the deletion. Phil Sandifer 14:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was pure chance that I noticed it, and your experience will clearly be with people that have noticed, with the other ones forgotten about.  violet/riga (t) 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When a non-admin clicks on the deletion log they see the admin who deleted, correct? If so, what's the issue? barn 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion log, yes, but you are therefore expecting an average user to notice that an article no longer exists and then search for it in the deletion logs - not really something we should expect.  violet/riga (t) 15:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what s/he means is the page specific deletion log: "If a page previously existed at this exact title, check the deletion log..." not Special:Log/delete. Non-admins are provided that link and they can then contact the deleting admin. Marskell 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion log 

message: Since the page is protected, I don't want to be too bold, for once :). There are shiny warnings templates done by the WP:UW project that might be better than the old  series mentionned here:  (good faith),  (neutral),  (firm warning),  (final warning). Does anyone disagree with this change in the page? -- lucasbfr talk 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree. To account for the possibility that the old warning templates are still occasionally used, we could subst all transclusions and then redirect each to one of the new templates. For instance,  corresponds to ,  corresponds to , and so on. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know why new templates are being created that involve more typing, such as the above, and changing sprotect2 to whatever it is now? The longer they are, the harder to remember. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a member of WikiProject user warnings and don't know for certain, but I'd guess that it's to standardise all warning templates with the "uw-" prefix and per the 4-level scheme here. In this specific case, I think it is also to introduce , which (unlike subsequent levels) explicitly assumes good intentions. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|uw-biog}} series 

message: *It is not stated anywhere whether the BLP policy applied to dead people, and this has caused confusion.
*The authority that BLP gives to administrators to delete articles is not clear.
*The policy states that articles that are not written "responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone" can be deleted, but articles have been deleted that are acceptable under these terms.
*The importance of the word "and" appears to be ignored in "unsourced and negative in tone" with appropriately-sourced articles having been deleted.
In my opinion the BLP policy needs changing to deal with the above problems.  I see no end to the disputes if it is not updated to reflect recent controversies.  Deletions based on one administrator's interpretation of a policy should be done with caution and openness.  At the very least I feel that a placeholder article should be created after the article is deleted, giving a reason for its removal similar to .  violet/riga (t) 18:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same about the first one (dead people), but others clearly see it differently.  The articles I have in mind for all of this are the ones being scrutinised by the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration.  violet/riga (t) 18:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *What's going on is quite simple. We've been irresponsible in the BLP area, so we're trying to improve. We want to get rid of BLPs that seem designed to trash people, to exact revenge, to draw attention to someone who's otherwise not notable, and that rely on poor sources or none. The way different admins go about this differs. Some feel very strongly about it and will be hard-hitting. Others won't be. It's the same with all policies: how they are applied differs. That doesn't affect the value of the policy itself. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, generally, no we haven't, no we don't, no we're not, and no we shouldn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with BLP as it is 

message: I'd like to propose a change to the name of this policy page.  I've been considering different names and feel that the best one I can suggest is Wikipedia:Biographical content.  My reasoning is such:
#The current name implies it only relates to biography articles when it applies to all our content, including non-biography articles, talk pages, Wikipedia pages, etc..
#After consideration I feel that the policy must apply (at the very least) to the recently deceased, and the current name does not allow for that.
The second point here may still be under discussion but the title would still be an improvement considering point #1.  violet/riga (t) 20:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "living" part is important. Applying it to the recently deceased is controversial, and not necessarily settled. One of the main reasons for this policy is "do no harm", and frequent arguments include that having an article about someone will affect them in job interviews -- obviously, other than in a metaphysical sense, the dead, even the recent dead can't be harmed, and they usually don't apply for jobs (other than occasionally winning senatorial elections). They can, of course, still vote in Chicago. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained that can be discussed separately and the title would still be an improvement based on #1.  violet/riga (t) 21:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. Removing the "living" part makes a big difference. If you want to discuss that separately, add "living" back in. Heck, even SlimVirgin, one of the die hard "delete-em-all-and-let-Jimbo-sort-em-out" folks thinks that having "living" in the title is important. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's a contentious area that needs discussing.  Not having the word "living" in the title does not automatically mean that it applies to the non-living.  The policy itself would explain the situation as it stands (ie. right now it would carry on talking about living persons).  violet/riga (t) 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: I'd like to request clarification on something.  The recent kerfuffle on AN/I regarding  offering to send a copy of an article to the subject of the article has raised an interesting point: Do we send them the text on request?  If Joseph T. Blow hears that an article did at one point exist on Wikipedia about him but was deleted under BLP and would like to have a copy, could he have it?  Since he's the subject of the article, there wouldn't be an privacy violations under BLP, so if we had a policy of not allowing this, it would probably need to be categorized under a different heading. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that there are at least three different issues here, none of which are straightforward.  As a general rule, do we want Wikipedia users contacting the subjects of articles?  Is there any way to make sure that this is always understood to be them acting as private individuals, especially when it is a "Wikipedia administrator" doing so?  While there may be cases in which contact is appropriate, I suggest that someone who has been the subject of unwanted internet attention is probably not one of them.  Another question is whether or not administrators' ability to review deleted content should be taken as a license to redistribute that content.  It muddies the waters on who exactly is publishing this content.  This is of special significance in the case of potential libel.  If it is the case that we can or should expect administrators to use their ability to read deleted content in order to distribute it, we are going to need to apply oversight a lot more liberally.  Lastly, administrators have not historically been chosen by the community for their ability to act as ambassadors nor to make judgement calls about whose writing gets emailed to who.  If this is a new role that adminsitrators are taking upon themselves, the community may reasonably expect to want to reconsider who it gives adminship to.  Frankly, I hope that the situation that prompted the question is so unusual that we don't really need to explore these issues, and, as a practical matter, it is probably best to de-sysop administrators who are showing poor judgement by distributing or republishing deleted content than it is to rework our entire approach to deletion and the role of adminship.  Jkelly 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if the deleted content was defamatory, do we want to supply the evidence to the subject? That should be a decision for the lawyers or courts, not for individual admins. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this particular case, I believe (not having seen the article in question, as I'm not an administrator and it doesn't seem to be in the Google cache) that the content was not defamatory, but was largely sourced to a front-page Washington Post article.  I do believe, that individual admins (or individual editors) should generally not be contacting people as representatives of Wikipedia - that's what OTRS is for.  The question of whether the subject of a BLP should have input on whether it is kept or deleted is, of course, an interesting issue that has been under discussion previously, although not in quite this context. JavaTenor 22:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely, the decision to send or not send should be left to WP:OFFICE. "Do not repost or send deleted material under any circumstances" ought to be the hardest rule admins have. Marskell 08:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean Userfying is now banned?  Or any of the other numerous cases in which an admin might supply deleted text to a user to use it to help write a better article, for example Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Userfying involves undeleting an article, moving it to userspace and deleting the mainspace redirect, not simply emailing the text. And userfying is only done in certain circumstances, depending on the deletion reason; if the content was a copyvio, for example, it should not be userfied. --bainer (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sending deleted BLP content to the subject? 

message: It seems (to me) to be very clear that the lack of clarity on what's going on is a big source of the ... heated debate on BLP issues and deletion.  It has been suggested by some that BLP may provide a speedy deletion criterion apart from G10.  If this is true it should be added (in some form) to the WP:CSD.  I believe that a lot of the conflict is arising because it seems like things are happening secretly and out of process - if what was going on was open and clear it would alleviate a lot of these hurt feelings and lessen a lot of the conflicts.  
Now, before I cause a kerfuffle, by open I don't mean that things need to be announced or displayed or what have you.  I only mean treated the same as any other speedy deletion candidate with respect to deletion.  Undeletion of alledged BLP problems does need to be handled through a more sensitive forum than DRV, I suspect. WilyD 22:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fairness in Openness

message: All of this fracas over WP:BLP seems to be reaching some kind of critical mass in the last week.  I've seen disruptive AfD nominations, vast tracts of borderline incivil discussion, and now desysopping over this material.  We, as a community, need to come together write some standards here - this kind of endless teeth gnashing by both sides is a terrific waste of time.
Arguments on both sides run all over the place, with people's morals getting tied up in many of them.  Personally, I've never really seen the problem.  As far as I can tell, all the needs to happen here is to draw the line between whether a person is notable as a person, or notable as part of an event.  If they are notable because of the former, then they should have an article about them.  If they are only notable because of an event, then they should be merged into the article about the event, and the personal information about them seriously pared down.  I think this standard should apply even to people who are dead.  A sensible and reasonable discussion about where to draw the line between these two forms of notoriety should be more than enough to draw the line here.
Whether or not the persons "wants" this notoriety, of either kind, or seeks it is immaterial.  We should not be making moralistic judgment calls about the possible "damage" to their lives, or seeking to empathize with how they might feel about being written about.  Their notoriety, as a person, draws out of their personal reaction the the events in question - do they withdraw, and shun the media spotlight (as Alison Stokke did), or do they step out and become public figures and advocates in their own right (as Elizabeth Smart (abductee)) did.  I think we, as an encyclopedia, have a duty to catalog notable events (bearing in mind the blight of recentism), but we must temper this with a respect for private citizens.  Events may well be notable - but the subjects of those events may not be.  I think a good "litmus test" for whether or not a member of an event should possess it's own page is if we remove the initial event from their page, is there an encyclopedic article remaining.  Note, however, that this should not apply to people where the event is not a negative, or damaging one, nor should it apply people involved in crimes as a perpetrator.  Your thoughts? --Haemo 23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My view on the matter

message: I believe that "when not to revert content deletion without consensus" is best characterized as when it is cluefully claimed as potentially illegal due to Florida/US law on copyright, privacy rights, or libel. Specifically, 
*the issue is content deletion and not article deletion
*the criteria for reverting in extraordinary cases should be consensus rather than arbcom or some other criteria
*"extraordinary case" should be include these considerations:
**cluefully:a trusted editor or cluefully expressed reason
**claimed: they must claim it but need not prove it
**potentially: we are not lawyers
**illegal:nothing less requires this
**Florida/US law: we don't and can't go by every nation's laws
**specify the laws as we are not lawyers
***people keep leaving out privacy rights which are a key reason to not have a bio on semi-notable people. WAS 4.250 00:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When not to revert content deletion without consensus

message: Someone take a look at Tori Anthony and tell me if they see any problems.  No specific issues, so I'm not taking this to blpn, but it's relevant to recent events. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  thoughts on an article 

message: Can this policy be applied to deceased persons? I realize that dead people can't sue Wiki, but still: they should have the same right for getting an equal treatment and not risk being put in a bad light. If the answer is yes, or near yes, then I ask you to have a look at this. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, this policy doesn't apply to deceased persons unless they are quite recently deceased. The premise of having a separate policy for biographies of living persons is that, as content in BLPs can have real-world negative consequences for people, we have an ethical (and legal) responsibility to ensure that such articles are accurate and neutral. Though all of our articles should be accurate and neutral, there is less of a pressing moral or legal responsibility when the subject of the article (or of the content), in this case Voltaire, cannot be harmed. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, all articles should be held to the same high standards of research, verifiability, and neutral writing (crossing our fingers that "accuracy" will come tumbling shortly after). More thoughts... — CharlotteWebb 01:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur strongly with WAS. However, I note that the query from Anittas was about Voltaire, who isn't really "recently deceased," so I don't really think WP:BLP applies to those who lived in the 18th century. FNMF 02:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, there seems to be general agreement that this policy applies to the recently deceased as well as the living, on the grounds that they are likely to have living kith and kin.  For instance Johnny Cash died in 2003 but if someone kept removing unsourced or poorly sourced statements to the effect that he'd been involved in some disreputable activity, for instance, we wouldn't want to block him under the three revert rule or for any other reason.  Same might apply to, for instance, John Denver (d. 1997) and Graham Greene (d. 1991), possibly John Lennon (d. 1980) but probably not John F. Kennedy (d. 1963) or even  Jimi Hendrix (d. 1970).  My opinion only, contents may settle in transit. --Tony Sidaway 03:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, but our other policies cover all that just fine.  There's no need for any extraordinary measures in an article on a dead person: when possible, we should let the Wiki process work, and those problems will be resolved.  I will note, though, that just because an edit occurs in article about, say, Johnny Cash doesn't mean it's necessarily about Johnny Cash: it might be saying something about his living family or associates or such... so BLP really can apply everywhere.  Mangojuicetalk 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies of deceased persons