Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 16

message: Umm.....why does it say strictly abide by laws of Florida, and USA? Why Florida, is there a special law there? --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 03:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the state the database servers are in. States have slightly different laws so useful to know which one.Geni 04:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florida? 

message: There are only occasionally questions regarding the "motivations" of corporate entities in the recent past. Would discussing the motivation of such an ideologically-homogenous organization for making certain actions be also, effectively, a statement regarding the individuals in that organization who would be in a position to act on their motivations? If yes, would it also be true that, if the events were in the recent past, that BLP might be seen to apply, as what is being discussed might well be the motivations of the individual leaders of the organization?  John Carter 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen this addressed but my first reaction is no, if a statement does not single out individual natural people in an identifiable way then it is not bout a living person.  That goes for characterizing companies, professions, and in most cases referencing people by their position (e.g. police on the scene failed to prevent the mob from yyyyy).  Quite apart form BLP issues, though, it's a slippery thing to attribute intentionality, motivations, or knowledge to a group or institution.  Often it's a fallacy or a POV issue.  There are a few places like reporting a legal conclusion, or describing theories of group behavior, where it makes sense.  Wikidemo 18:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of Wikidemo's analysis. However I disagree about reporting on the motivations of organizations. To begin with, many organizations claim motivations for their actions: "we're cutting jobs to reduce costs", "we're supporting this bill because we believe it will improve security", "we're introducing a line of sneakers to target the 10-12 year old market sgment", etc. In addition, pundits and other commentators routinely ascribe motivations to organizational actions: "they're trying to reposition themselves as a value brand", "they're supporting the bill because it would lower their tax liability", "they stopped opposing the bill when they were paid off", etc. Most of these are opinions, but if they are published in reliable sources and if they are significant viewpoints then they should be included, in most cases with attribution.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  An organization may have a purpose for its actions, or a corporate objective.  I was thinking more along the lines of human feelings or motivations, like attributing pride, anger, jealousy, etc., to a company.Wikidemo 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding corporate entities 

message: I added this line to the policy:
:In particular, speculation about the health or death of a living person is not to be included in articles. A biography of a living person should not be changed to characterize them as dead or dying, unless supported by reliable sources with citations to allow verification.
Which seems like an obvious conclusion that is indisputable, but apparently an editor does dispute it so I will post it here to see what is disputed. Dhaluza 00:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People engaged in editing content disputes are not supposed to come to policy project pages to change them in order to support their arguments in such disputes.  Please see WP:Edit warring for how to proceed with problems of that kind. [Prior to thinking about changing WP:BLP, please read this talk page and some of the archived discussions for some context. Thanks.] --NYScholar 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, if the addition is such an "obvious" "conclusion" from reading WP:BLP, it does not need to be added.  If it's so "obvious" a conclusion, it's obvious from the policy as already stated. [It's just one example of what the policy pertains to.]  Because some people are having problems convincing others of that is not a reason to put the addition in the policy.  It is redundant with what is already stated in the policy. (Plus, it is not clearly worded anyway.) ... --NYScholar 00:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 1) If the wording is unclear, editing it to make it clear advances the ball, reverting the change does not. 2) There is no edit war, much less any serious dispute--editors are simply reverting unnecessary speculation, and the Steve Fossett page is semi-protected again. This case just highlighted another issue with BLP, and it seemed appropriate to document it for the future. Although it should be an obvious conclusion, it's often best to state the obvious. Dhaluza 03:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the sentiments but I also think it's unnecessary because it's so obvious.  So I urge against cluttering up the policy page with a specific rule on the subject.  Also, premature reports of death based on speculation or unconfirmed stories are a special case, such a tiny fraction of all BLP problems that they don't deserve space on the policy page on the same level as the main rules.  We do deal regularly with hoaxes and vandalism but we already have a policy on that, and the newbies who do it are unlikely to refer to this page.  Is there a better place to put such a statement, perhaps a policy or guideline relating to current events?  Or maybe just come up with a template to deal with it.Wikidemo 03:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If this page is to be read and followed rather than provideing fodder for rule lawyers it needs to be short and to the point. That means not trying to specificaly cover everything that could happen every.Geni 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've rewritten the sentence in more correct and clearer syntax.  It does not change the meaning of the sentence. (I split the first sentence, which had an error of grammar, into more than one sentence and linked the clauses of the other sentence more correctly.  As in other cases, the passive voice leads to some of these problems.  I changed one sentence to include a verb more concisely.  --NYScholar 18:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "top-ten" needs some kind of documentation/link (see above) so that it refers to something that will make sense.  Otherwise, it is distracting and just needs to be something like "frequently-consulted website" and the phrase that I added "consulted frequently by readers on the internet" (an appositive defining what "top-ten" means) can be omitted. --NYScholar 18:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took most of that out.  Saying the obvious (Wikipedia is popular, we must adhere "strictly" to policies, etc) is just fluff and looks somewhat unprofessional.Wikidemo 18:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Happy to remove that too.  I don't think there's anything in this policy that relates to complaints by the subject.  Wikidemo 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Given your recent change (I just corrected a typographical error--leaving in the "; therefore") and deletion of that phrase, I think that the section "Rationale" is much clearer and to the point. --NYScholar 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: With the "fluff" taken out, one can see that the "rationale" itself may need further development of an actual "rationale."  I have to go offline now, but I leave this for others to consider.  If the "rationale" does involve what "our subjects" are supposed "to expect" of or from Wikipedia, then there may be a way to address that without addressing them ("our subjects").  The focus of this section needs sharpening for greater clarity in whatever is further developed in it. --NYScholar 18:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay.  I understand your reverting back to original.  I thought the changes were minor stylistic ones.  (I still think "Rationale" needs development and clearer development. Its intended meaning is not clear.)  That said, I will observe that some of the changes that you reverted were extremely minor grammatical corrections, like inserting "that" where a conjunction is necessary.  Please take a look and see if you can restore the very minor changes that you might not have difficulty with (given what you stated earlier re: minor stylistic or syntactical changes [corrections]).  Just saw this comment; I have to be logged out of Wikipedia to do other work, so I leave this type of revision to others.  (The changes that I suggest are in the editing history.)  --NYScholar 04:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just stopping in to point out that my changes were not "undiscussed"; my discussion of them is above.  I think the section on "rationale" still needs further discussion/further revision.  It is not an adequate statement of a "rationale" for the policy as it currently is, and it is not written well, in that it has problems of grammar.  The writing of the policy needs to be an example of good writing (given the quotation from Jimmy Wales cited twice in it).  --NYScholar 22:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Someone has questioned this phrase.  It has no linkage in Wikipedia as documentation.  "Frequently-consulted site" is clearer if there is no linkage or documentation of "top ten" of what.  Where is the list of "top ten" sites documenting this claim? Where is some page in Wikipedia to link to in the phrase to verify that? The editor reverting the addition (which had other problems--it was too long and unwieldy and unclear and interrupted the sentence coh.) says "unnecessary" in the summary.  I think it is necessary either to link to what the phrase means or to delete it and add something like "frequently-consulted" before "site" (less unwieldly than a long explanation).  --NYScholar 18:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the sentence in more correct and clearer syntax.  It does not change the meaning of the sentence. (I split the first sentence, which had an error of grammar, into more than one sentence and linked the clauses of the other sentence more correctly.  As in other cases, the passive voice leads to some of these problems.  I changed one sentence to include a verb more concisely.  --NYScholar 18:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "top-ten" needs some kind of documentation/link (see above) so that it refers to something that will make sense.  Otherwise, it is distracting and just needs to be something like "frequently-consulted website" and the phrase that I added "consulted frequently by readers on the internet" (an appositive defining what "top-ten" means) can be omitted. --NYScholar 18:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took most of that out.  Saying the obvious (Wikipedia is popular, we must adhere "strictly" to policies, etc) is just fluff and looks somewhat unprofessional.Wikidemo 18:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "top-ten site"

message: Also an error in the syntax (sentence structure) of the sentence.  It is a ridiculous way to say whatever it is that is supposed to mean (I've questioned it earlier).  An earlier suggestion that I made intended to make clearer what that may refer to (who knows in that sentence as it appears?).  Please do something to fix that problem.  I would just leave the whole thing out.  It makes no sense.  If the policy is trying to say something about what people who "complain about our edits" are supposed to expect of Wikipedia for some reason, then please figure out a better way to make that point clear.  (Right now, it is not clear.)  --NYScholar 18:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to remove that too.  I don't think there's anything in this policy that relates to complaints by the subject.  Wikidemo 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Given your recent change (I just corrected a typographical error--leaving in the "; therefore") and deletion of that phrase, I think that the section "Rationale" is much clearer and to the point. --NYScholar 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: With the "fluff" taken out, one can see that the "rationale" itself may need further development of an actual "rationale."  I have to go offline now, but I leave this for others to consider.  If the "rationale" does involve what "our subjects" are supposed "to expect" of or from Wikipedia, then there may be a way to address that without addressing them ("our subjects").  The focus of this section needs sharpening for greater clarity in whatever is further developed in it. --NYScholar 18:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay.  I understand your reverting back to original.  I thought the changes were minor stylistic ones.  (I still think "Rationale" needs development and clearer development. Its intended meaning is not clear.)  That said, I will observe that some of the changes that you reverted were extremely minor grammatical corrections, like inserting "that" where a conjunction is necessary.  Please take a look and see if you can restore the very minor changes that you might not have difficulty with (given what you stated earlier re: minor stylistic or syntactical changes [corrections]).  Just saw this comment; I have to be logged out of Wikipedia to do other work, so I leave this type of revision to others.  (The changes that I suggest are in the editing history.)  --NYScholar 04:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just stopping in to point out that my changes were not "undiscussed"; my discussion of them is above.  I think the section on "rationale" still needs further discussion/further revision.  It is not an adequate statement of a "rationale" for the policy as it currently is, and it is not written well, in that it has problems of grammar.  The writing of the policy needs to be an example of good writing (given the quotation from Jimmy Wales cited twice in it).  --NYScholar 22:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "and when they complain about our edits"

message: Celebrity gossip is big business these days, and it appears that mainstream news outlets are become increasingly involved in the gossip business.  For example, CNN has been touting its connection with TMZ.com and Harvey Levin of TMZ often appears on CNN.  Internet gossip Perez Hilton is invited on mainstream television to comment on gossip.  Not all "mainstream" gossip is new; Page Six is a long-standing and popular gossip column within the NY Post, but mainstream publications will sometimes circumvent this distinction by citing an item to the Post without mentioning that it is from Page Six.  The standards for reporting gossip are different than those for reporting hard news--after all, it's only gossip and is reported as such.  Is a gossip column in a mainstream publication a reliable source of information about a person by Wikipedia's standards?  -Jmh123 18:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, gossip columnists are appearing on legitimate news shows, and journalists are appearing on gossip shows. If newspapers and news shows clearly labeled their gossip content then it would be easier for us to come up with a clear guideline. Regarding Page Six, it has had some recent scandals but it is also a part of a large, accountable media outlet and is presumably edited in some fashion. Most gossip is trivial and not worth including for that reason alone (it isn't encyclopedic to list who has been dating whom, but longterm partners are worth including). Certainly when stories become so important that the subjects comment on them that crosses a line. It's a tough call, but I think we should try to minimize the amount of gossip-like material we include and should be very wary of sources that resemble gossip columns.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the standards of the Post, such as they are, are met by Page Six.  I have seen too many errors of fact there to accept that.  Likewise MSNBC.com's gossip column is, in my experience, not a reliable source of fact.  TMZ is on a roll for the moment, but I doubt it's on its way to become a respected member of the journalistic community.  I agree with the rest of what you say: gossip is trivial.  We should minimize its inclusion and should be wary of any source that is labeled "gossip."  -Jmh123 23:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking clarification regarding the reliability of gossip sources 

message: Am I missing something? When I looked at OJ Simpson's article, I was surprised to find no section for his NFL or acting career. They were removed per BLP. I can understand if there are specific slanderous unsourced statements, but this doesn't appear to be the case. Gotyear 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible that the information was removed because it wasn't sourced. Technically, that could be done at any time, particularly if some of the content added were in some way, maybe even indirectly, related to a matter of dispute and/or defamation. Certainly, I believe that there would be no objections to requesting the data be reinstated. However, it would very much help if a specific, reliable source for the information was cited. John Carter 21:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Theoretically, any uncited information about a living person should be removed. If the info is uncontroversial and also correct, however, what you might want to do is just copy the text or userfy it and find reliable sources for everything. That way, everyone will be happy. :) Rockstar (T/C) 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it.  That's one of the stranger applications of policy I've seen.  If anyone cares to improve the article they're welcome, but deleting sports statistics on a BLP claim is pointless.  Wikidemo 23:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see a problem with the restore. It should be sourced, but it is not contentious or disputed information, and is sourcable. Dean Wormer 19:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, any article on OJ Simpson is likely to be horribly unbalanced without his football or acting career information, which is likely to be neither contentious nor negative.  WilyD 00:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - using BLP to remove this is a grotesque abuse of what BLP is for. Phil Sandifer 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OJ Simpson 

message: An attempt is being made to add a change to this policy to extend BLP protections to talk about living people to talk, project, and user pages.  This seems somewhat misguided.  While outright libel has no place in any subspace of this project, imposing the same high burden of sourcing for any controversial information even on discussion outside the main encyclopedia space seems unwarranted.  If taken literally, this would eliminate such things as WP:AN/I, where Wikipedians' behavior is discussed (generally not sourced from reliable news media, which, while they cover Wikipedia quite a bit these days, don't go so far as to do articles about every act of petty vandalism).  This would appear to be more fallout from the contentious "attack sites" debate, and it's the mirror image of various efforts to apply WP:NPA to article space, sometimes risking compromising WP:NPOV.  The fact is that article space, user space, talk space, and project space are all different in nature and purpose, and have different standards for what is acceptable in each.  Attempts to apply a policy made for one space in a totally literal way to a different one are not generally sensible. *Dan T.* 01:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for having the civility to bring this discussion to the talk page!  We should all be so considerate.  But with all due respect and more, I think you have it backwards.  The policy applies and has always applied to the project and user pages, and every other page on Wikipedia.  We don't repeat libel, period.  Anywhere.  People on both sides of this little edit spat are 100% in agreement on this.  It's just a dispute over how to say that.  Some people seem to think that it makes a statement stronger to follow up a universal statement with a partial list of particulars.  You know, "nobody is allowed backstage after the show, not performers, crew, or audience."  Versus some people who think it's stronger to say it once because to make a list implies exceptions...(but what about vendors and agents?).  "Nobody is allowed backstage, period."  You do raise a good point about AN/I, etc., but that's a separate issue that has some subtleties to it, and we should talk about that elsewhere.  Wikidemo 01:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles vs. Talk / User / Project pages 

message: The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
I was wondering, with regard to the above mentioned material, should criticisms of someone or accusations of scandals or controversies be only third party sources? For example, John Doe (notable in some way shape or form) say Tom Smith is a racist. Several questions arise from this:
#Does The Daily Podunk (or any reliable third party) have to notice and comment on John Doe’s statements before it is a controversy? 
#Can John Doe opinions be included without the third party citation?
#If not appropriate for Tom Smith’s article, is it still appropriate for John Doe’s article?
#Is this a BLP issue?
Now, instead of John Doe being a notable person, say that he is a columnist for The Boofoo Herald and Post
#Does The Daily Podunk (or any reliable third party) have to notice and comment on John Doe’s statements before it is a controversy, or is the Boofoo Herald and Post? 
#Can John Doe opinions be included without the third party citation?
#If not appropriate for Tom Smith’s article, is it still appropriate for John Doe’s article?
#Is this a BLP issue?
Another example for clarification: The Society for A Better Widget (or any noteworthy group) says that Joe Johnson builds the worst mousetrap in the world. 
#Does The Daily Podunk (or any reliable third party) have to notice and comment on The Society for A Better Widget’s statements before it is a controversy? 
#Can The Society for A Better Widget’s opinions be included without the third party citation?
#If not appropriate for Joe Johnsons’s article, is it still appropriate for The Society for A Better Widget’s article?
#Is this a BLP issue?
What I am trying to resolve here is group vs individual criticism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policies of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV cover the aspects related in your questions. John Doe's viewpoint cannot be used in neither John Does or Tom Smith's articles, if Does' viewpoint is only available in a self published source, as such sources cannot be used to support claims about third parties. If Does' viewpoint was published in The Daily Podunk, it may be used in either article with the proviso the the Podunk is considered a reputable publication (in particular if the claim is contentious), and the Podunk's viewpoint is significant and does not breach WP:UNDUE. Similarly The Society for A Better Widget’s opinions can be cited in the society's article in Wikipedia, under the caveats of WP:SELFPUB ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy Interpretation 

message: The meaning of "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source." is unclear. See the discussion at the talk page of NOR. WAS 4.250 00:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unclear 

message: User:WAS 4.250 has made a number of small-ish changes to the page without discussion, many of which I reverted.  That's fine, and the nature of things - if a small change on a policy page goes unchallenged one may assume it's accepted; if not, it should be discussed first.  However, the editor deleted this phrase a second time.  I'm not fully up on how everything in BLP came to be, but the admonition against appearing to side with critics, even if their views are well-sourced, seems to have been in the policy section for a while and represent a consensus.  The reason for this is obvious in my opinion.  WE simply don't take sides on controversial matters.  If something is a well-established fact we can say so, but without joining one side or the other in a debate.  This has come up recently, for example, in the game of media "watch dog" groups that repeatedly bash politicians, journalists, and each other over alleged factual misrepresentations and inaccuracies.  Each digs up factoids in an attempt to show the other is wrong, dishonest, etc.  We have to be very careful how we use these sources because if we cite them in a way that implies an endorsement, we are taking their side in a partisan debate.  Wikidemo 00:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New changes 

message: In "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics" the last part "or appear to side with the critics" violates NPOV. The view of critics of Osama bin Laden that are notable and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources should be in the article regardless of whether or not they "appear to side with the critics". "Appear to side with the critics" violates NPOV and should be deleted. WAS 4.250 00:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so. BLPs is not about the critics of the person, but about the person. If there are reliable sources that present a criticism of the living person, these can be indeed added, but not at the expense of the biographical information about the person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The Bin Laden article is a good example, and I do not see that the article suffers of "siding with its critics". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: NPOV is indeed non-negotiable, and BLP is an extension of it, same as being an extension of V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But you can see where articles side with critics as in the Uri Geller example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. BLP is not an extension of NPOV. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material would still need to be taken out even if it is in some fashion compliant with NPOV. The Geller article is well-written and doesn't magically side with the critics. It's simply similar to the Kent Hovind situation where there are many reliable sources which are negative and almost all the reliable sources are negative. The last segment that WAS has referred to is in fact redundant, since no criticism section or any section should ever appear to side with anyone, that would actually be an NPOV violation. And having a lot of criticism listed does not mean it is siding with the critics. It simply means there is a lot of relevant criticism. JoshuaZ 03:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Gellar example is indeed odd, and our coverage of odd people is always going to be a little problematic.  He's clearly a classic illusionist who goes a little far with the claims of his act.  Whether to say that's faking, or merely putting on a stage act, is unclear.  It does seem a little extreme to devote so much article space to debunking a "psychic" or magician.  How do we handle televangelists who claim to have healing powers or speak with the voice of God?  Or professional wrestlers who put on acts that are not, as they say, real?  We can report incidents and lawsuits over the issue but it seems over the top for wikipedia to get into the business of debunking.  The Kent Hovind article is fascinating - there are plenty of problems with it, but to tell the man's life story is to tell of a lot of incidents and controversies.  Wikidemo 03:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In any event, regardless of precisely whether the criticism in both those articles is to the write levels, thats more an issue of NPOV than BLP per my above reasoning. The segment in question is at best redundant. JoshuaZ 03:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Missing the point. That's true for all articles anyways. Thus, this is at best redundant.  JoshuaZ 18:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "Appear to side with the critics" violates NPOV and should be deleted. Perhaps we should replace it with "Articles about living people should not be written in a manner that sides with a critic's view, rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." since that seems to be your point and I think we all agree with that. WAS 4.250 17:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was's wording makes sense. Another possibility might simply be replacing it with something like "All Wikipedia articles must comply with the neutral point of view and this is especially important for BLPs." or something like that. JoshuaZ 18:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  :: I see WAS' point. Wording tightened. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating "All Wikipedia articles must comply with neutral point of view" is useless in BLP disputes. The wording must be very specific as to what that means in the context of a biographical article (as it seems the new wording is). Kaldari 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More-or-less, but it's not just siding with a critic's view, but siding with the critics in any fashion.  As I mentioned above, some critics use only facts.  But slavishly repeating facts cited by political hacks by reference to their attack pieces creates a huge POV problem.  That's one of the things that was going on with the edit wars over John Stossel - people were citing "watchdog group" articles with names akin to "XXXX caught misrepresenting the facts again."  I'm editing this to keep our somewhat broader position. Wikidemo 11:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I thought you'd like to have a look at this news article .
Since the All Blacks have been defeated by France in the Rugby World Cup, some angry fans have been issuing death threats and even a bounty for the head of Wayne Barnes, the referee of the match! You'd be surprised by the usage of Wikipedia by sports fans to express their rage!--Alasdair 18:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This situation is extremely serious. There has been a series of comments requiring Oversight removal and the article has had to be full-protected. Newyorkbrad 19:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Threats against rugby referee in Wikipedia 

message: I think we should put this section in a more prominent place for people to see, and not in the end of a small guideline for the community that no one will look for it there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.190.7 (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with your wikipedia article 

message: Along with privacy, how about not including personal financial information in an article?  For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Jones&oldid=163394231  
Why do we need to know the amount held in a person's bank account? -- Glacialfury 19:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of which is something you'd have to read into. None of that is mentioned; if it's important, weave it in, but in this particular case, I believe it violates privacy. "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." Jimmy Wales.  Either way, the policy would benefit by having specific guidelines regarding subject finances. Glacialfury 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BLP standard in a case like this is that a non-tabloid reliable secondary source say it in a published article about the person and not just as some passing reference. In other words, someone we can trust to make the decision (because they are paid to make these decisions), decided it is not tabloidish and is relevant to an article about the person. So we can rely on their judgement. Which sucks in a way, but is necessary cuz anyone can edit and we are mostly anonymous. Anyway, that seems to be working best so far. Maybe if someone donated a few million dollars for the purpose we could hire some editors and rely more on in-house judgement. WAS 4.250 21:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I disagree.  Maybe you could make an argument for including someone's net worth, but certainly not the contents of his or her bank account.  What you're saying is that, because we're not paid, we are unqualified to make judgments about the validity of an inclusion.  Assume instead that we are, as a community, an intelligent actor and can judge for ourselves the validity of our users' contributions.  Intellectual "worth" should never be based on the availability or amount of a salary - the editors' skills are at issue, and those skills are not validated merely because they are paid, and being a paid editor certainly does not guarantee good judgment or any sort of higher authority.  Even reputable sources make poor decisions in their editing from time to time, and rather than playing cow, we should take up the mantle of higher responsibility and hold ourselves to a higher standard. Glacialfury 21:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy - Discussing financial information 

message: The Jean-Paul Ney‎ article is sourced primarily from French language sources and I'm not sure of the best way to make sure the sources and content don't violate WP:BLP, I've put in for an RfC on the article  and have been looking for a French to English translator, but no luck so far.  One of the disputants is making legal threats and the others are claiming the content is validly sourced.  I'd like to get more eyes on this.  Thanks!  Dreadstar † 20:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jean-Paul Ney‎ article 

message: In the worst case, it can be a criminal violation of privacy laws; with the editor who added the information legally liable. Saying that the worse case for an editor violating someone's privacy is that they violate a wikipedia rule is nonsense. WAS 4.250 00:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a lot of things, what Wikipedia's BLP policy considers "private" is information that can easily be found in public records, so there is some truth to saying they're only violating Wikipedia's rule. Almost like fair use images, we seem to be far more strict than the law requires us. -- Ned Scott 21:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty much coverd by other parts of BLP. -- Ned Scott 21:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  privacy 

message: Perhaps add that adding too much genealogy might reveal the mother's maiden name,
-- more identity theft.
But this is all security thru obscurity.
Jidanni 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much coverd by other parts of BLP. -- Ned Scott 21:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mother's maiden name

message: I was directed here by the helpful comment from Wikidemo on the page of WP:3RR.  Before you proceed applying some sort of 3RR procedure to BLPs, please note the copyright violations you may incur. The term 3RR is in fact the 3 rules of robotics.  We must therefore have policies such as these speedied since they are a copyvio and a potential liabiliy for the WM foundation.  (Please note though that rather sadly such BLP policy no longer applies to Asimov)  Please see WP:CSD#G12 for more information, or leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions.  Oh no, I'm about to forget my signature!  SineBot Help!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.236.33 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, I assume, some sort of satire?  If taken seriously, one should note that copyright does not apply to a 3-character acronym, but only to a much longer work that might include it.  Trademark law might apply, but I don't know of the abbreviation "3RR" actually being trademarked by Asimov, his estate, or anybody else for referring to his three laws of robotics, which, in any case, have no connection to our 3 Revert Rule. *Dan T.* 22:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the Wikimedia Foundation might be infringing on the intellectual rights of Asimov's "Encyclopedia Foundation", especially if it harbors hidden goals of ultimately conquering the galaxy and bringing about a new Galactic Empire. *Dan T.* 22:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that the "3 rules of Robotics" has passed into the public domain since Asimov allowed other writers to use (and quote) the concept quite freely in their own fiction. I understand that Asimov also promoted the discussion/use of 3RR in the artificial intelligence field in real life. Note that nobody considers geo stationary telecommunication satellites a possible copy-vio, even though it was proposed and named in an Arthur C Clarke book (I forget which one). LessHeard vanU 22:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danger [[2001|Will Robinson]] 

message: I got pulled into a conflict on Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda. It's currently up for AfD here. I'm extremely concerned about this article. Basically, a group of university researchers compiled a list of people that the US government had stated were terrorists, and then published the list in the form of a study. It ended up on this article, as a complete list of names of living people, and groups, which I redacted here per BLP. My concern is that we have a page labeling many people as "terrorists", when we have only a single primary source for it: the US government, which in turn was rewritten and collected by the researchers, and then reposted here on Wikipedia. We have (as of yet, despite my asking) no reliable 3rd party sources that these people are terrorists. 
My concern: if we have any single primary source saying something extremely negative about someone/some group, shouldn't it be excluded unless there are multiple reliable sources also asserting it? If, for example, some random newspaper says that celebrity X is anorexic, but no one else reports on it, shouldn't we exclude it? If Saudi Arabia's military department labeled a C.I.A. agent named Stan Smith a terrorist (but no one else reported on it), would we then include Stan Smith on List of Terrorists? I'm concerned if I am interpreting this all correctly. I don't think we should be listing any names on that article, without 3rd party sourcing. • Lawrence Cohen 16:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we are not saying they are terrorists we are saying that person X called them a terrorist.Geni 02:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you say that was the wording of this version of the article, before I refactored the list? My concern is that by presenting this information we're functionally saying "these guys are/are involved with" terrorism. • Lawrence Cohen 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative assertations by primary sources 

message: :The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics.
This phrase is becoming a problem.  See, for example, the John Stossel, David Vitter, and Larry Craig articles.  Editors seem to have no problem determining what is and is not relevant to someone's notability, or sourced to reliable sources, or appearing to side with critics.  However, there seem to be vastly divergent opinions on how much criticism is too much.  This has led to edit wars, page protections, and accusations of incivility.  
What is the solution here?  To quantify the limit in terms of a percentage of bytes devoted to criticism?  Te require that criticism is only allowed a single TOC heading?  Something else?  Acct4 23:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution is to find common ground with active editors on these articles. If you cannot find that common ground, involve other editors via our dispute resolution process. You can start by asking a third opinion, or placing a request for comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We need to reflect the sum total of the way the world sees someone. Not just today's newspapers, but the way the world saw them over the course of their lives. For example, OJ Simpson, above on this page; currently he's most famous, or infamous, for the Nicole Brown Simpson trials, but for a long time he was highly notable as a football star, and then for a while, slightly notable as a minor actor. We need to write about all that in proportion, not through the lenses of today's hottest news. Imagine you're reading the article from the viewpoint of 100 years later, and the "top stories" of 2007 are no more important than the "top stories" of 1987. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not so sure that's good advice. In 100 years do you think anyone will remember the legislative accomplishments of Craig or Vitter relative to their scandals? Acct4 04:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they won't if if everyone bows to ratings pressure and only covers scandal.  I think there is a tendency sometimes to think that the impact a person has is well represented in the high profile news reporting about them, and I don't think that always serves our encyclopedic purpose well.  Although, for instance, Vitter and Craig may well be more likely to be referred to in many general publications in the future for the scandals they were involved in, their impact in terms of actually affecting people's lives is going to be in the legislation they helped to pass (or block) and the way they influenced public debate.  In this instance, as an encyclopedia we should probably be looking more to the balance of opinion of political scientists rather than news journalists to determine what an appropriate balance in the article should be.  Not that the scandals won't be big things - but they are often blown out of proportion in terms of public coverage and I don't think we should follow that standard.  -- SiobhanHansa 16:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scandals fade more than you think.  Most people would be hard pressed to remember most scandals from the 1990s, much less the decade 1900-1910.  Wikidemo 22:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes, I think in 100 years people will remember their legislative accomplishments as well as their scandals. Remember this guy called Oscar Wilde? He had a huge scandal almost exactly 100 years ago. People remember it, but they also remember The Importance of Being Earnest, and Lady Windermere's Fan and The Happy Prince, and ... At a similar time Émile Zola was involved in a scandal, fled the country to avoid going to jail. Did The Dreyfus Affair make people forget Les Rougon-Macquart? More recently, Richard Nixon is certainly remembered for Watergate, but he is also remembered for establishing the EPA, opening to China, war with Vietnam... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a manner that does not overwhelm the article" 

message: Google has apparently become tighter about removing URLs from their index.  Previously I saw that anyone could nominate a URL to be removed, but now it appears that only site owners can request removal of URLs associated with the site(s) they have verified as owning.  It would be desirable to expedite the removal of deleted content, in particular articles about living persons which have been deleted, from the Google page index.  Has there been discussion on this point previously?  If not, is this something that would be generally considered beneficial to pursue?  For more information on removing content from Google, see http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/topic.py?topic=8459, http://www.google.com/intl/en/contact/index.html and, more specifically, http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=64033&topic=8459. Considering the position of Wikipedia relative to Google, it might even be worthwhile to consider an expedited automated removal process through an agreement between the Wikimedia Foundation and Google Inc. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be especially sensible for CSD#10 ("attack pages"). I've never understood why google lists (and caches) deleted content for so long. Maybe the developers could make a check box which would automatically put in a google de-listing when deleting a page. That is, in addition to the reason for deletion and "watch this page" there would be a check box "delist from google." Cool Hand Luke 00:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing content from Google 

message: I would like to question the wisdom of always excluding contact information in BLPs.  Specifically, the BLP for Leo Kuvayev used to have his email address.  I think that for articles such as that, the email addresses should be included.  I say this not in hopes of retaliation against him (as obviously that is futile through email), but rather because it is useful for identifying things that are his responsibility.  Namely, as Mr. Kvayev is a computer criminal, domains that are sold to him include his email address (while other information is often obfuscated).  If the email addresses that he has used are left in the article, it aids in the identification of domains that have been sold to him.
24.58.33.115  —Preceding comment was added at 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, we don't give out email addresses of any individual on Wikipedia articles. Neil ☎ 22:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no hard rule for that, and like any piece of information, it depends if the information is relevant. That being said, I don't think it would be relevant in this case (though I could be wrong), but for many people there likely won't be an issue with such information (many of which have their e-mail address listed on their personal web pages, which we often include). -- Ned Scott 02:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I really do think that having at least his past email addresses would be valuable, as it would show one of the ways that this person attempts to hide from pursuit.  Even if the article said something like "Mr. Kuvayev has used numerous email addresses in the past for registration that have subsequently been shut down, including aaa@bbb.com, bbb@ccc.com, ... some of which also corresponded to domains that he purchased".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.33.115 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I can see the logic in that, and it sounds like we are talking about e-mail addresses that are no longer active, and were public when they were active. I'm still not sure if it's useful to say it in the article, but I can understand your argument to include them. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contact Information, revisited 

message: I'm sure there must be guidelines for dealing with instances where there are conflicting realible sources on a particular biographical point, but i can't for the life of me find any guidance on here. Could anyone point me in the right direction? Amo 07:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NPOV that applies to all articles, including BLPs as it pertains to the description of competing significant viewpoints.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting sources? 

message: This has been previously discussed. Please do not delete these cites as these were instrumental in the making of BLP into official policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then feel free to put it in another section, but it is misleading and dishonest to let people think that the quote is in context to presuming privacy. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could have done that yourself ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth I've moved the three Jimmy Wales quotations into a new template I created called Template:Jimboquote.  If people like it, Jimbo quotes across policy pages can be standardized so everybody can tell at a glance that it's a Jimbo quote.  I thought that was worth doing to avoid confusion, and because Jimbo's pronouncements have a special role vis-a-vis Wikipedia policy.  If we want we can set them off with a special color, logo, font, alignment, etc.  I'm not terribly happy with the color but the template is unprotected so anyone is free to change it.  Wikidemo 04:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry.. I was.. a bit worked up? I should have just moved it, like you said.. -- Ned Scott 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Jimmy Wales cites 

message: The Royal involved  in 2007 Royal blackmail plot is not being named in the UK due to a legal injunction. However, perfectly reliable US and Australian sources are suggesting the same name. Does BLP preclude any mention in articles, not that he was involved but that he was reported as being involved? TerriersFan 20:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From a legal perspective there's no problem.   But from a what we are perspective, if we're really not confident enough of the sources to say it is him - it's more gossip than encyclopedic.  Few royals lead discreet enough lives that naming them is problematic form a privacy perspective, and the only real reason this is significant is because of who is involved.  The question is, is it really solid info yet, or should we be waiting instead of rushing? I don't think it's appropriate to just name suspects, but if non-English papers really know who it is and they're printing - then there's no reason to keep it out.  -- SiobhanHansa 15:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no much that can be done. It is already here: Viscount Linley. I will redirect the stub. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Royal blackmail plot 

message: We just won a lawsuit. Florence Devouard here says "I suggest that every project get a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
And consider building such policies in the near future." WAS 4.250 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation says: 

message: I raised a BLP issue on the noticeboard, a case which appeared by the wording of the policy to be a clear BLP violation. See this section. After some discussion, it appears that this is not a BLP issue after all. I believe the policy does not reflect practice, in that the policy does not specifically document cases where unpublished critical material is acceptable - i.e. when  the unpublished criticism addresses "material... related to a person's work in a field" as opposed to "casting aspersions on the person".
I read the entire policy, and there is no text in BLP that addresses this distinction between a person and his beliefs/work. I think it should be clarified. I propose that a qualification be added to this policy: that the enhanced standards for BLP only apply to personal information, not anything related to a person's views or work, and that unpublished sources may be acceptable in the latter case. I was thinking of boldly adding this text, but since this is such a critical policy, I thought I'd raise it here first. ATren 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy does not reflect practice 

message: I have a question about this paragraph in the policy:
"Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention."
Could someone please tell me exactly how I am supposed to do this? I think this paragraph should be deleted from the poicy (how big of a problem is this anyway, or is this just a hypothetical someone drempt up?). UnitedStatesian 04:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feedback exists. See this famous AfD where it was determined that some "sources" were really relying upon original research from Wikipedia. It's easy to rule out feedback: if a source pre-exists a claim in an article, it is not feedback. Otherwise, we should be cautious when such material is challenged and look for a better source which pre-exists claims in our articles. Cool Hand Luke 05:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So say I am examining a claim in the article George W. Bush.  As of a year ago that article had been been edited 33,566 times.  I have to go through all 33,566+ lines on the article history to figure out when the claim was put into the article? Not so easy, no? Also, I think the AfD you quote is not covered by BLP: can you idenitfy a feedback loop in a BLP? UnitedStatesian 18:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't hard. Go one year back in history (or whenever the source was published) and see if that version contains the claim. The fact that non-BLP articles have inspired press coverage implies that BLP articles could as well. Look, I think you're making this much too difficult: if only few recent sources support a claim, it's worth investigating whether it's possibly feedback. People who suspect feedback should bring it up, but it's not going to be a routine claim; only dubious and sparsely-cited information should raise eyebrows. Cool Hand Luke 19:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's WP:CREEP.  Wikipedia is not a reliable source and therefore can't be used to support itself.  This is already covered by WP:RS -Nathan J. Yoder  —Preceding comment was added at 06:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback loop? 

message: I would like to replace the phrase "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" with "Contentious material that is not properly sourced" or "Contentious material without proper sources".
Also, am I reading the policy right when I say that it's okay to leave unsourced material in biographies as long as it doesn't seem libelous and you're not aware that it's contentious? If that's the case, then I think  should be changed to reflect that, instead of saying "Unsourced material about living persons must be removed immediately". — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unreasonable to state that unsourced material be removed immediately if it is not libelous or contentious.  Most articles start out without many sources and tend to gain them as they improve in quality.  I agree that the template should be changed to reflect this distinction.  Morphh  (talk) 23:59, 09 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Biographies of living people should not have any unsourced material. The if it is poorly sourced and defamatory it can be remove promptly without discussion and can not be restored without proper sources. We should not give free license to place any unsourced content about living people in articles. Do not change the wording to encourage it. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with FloNight. In real edit wars people have restored uncited information while claiming that it's not libelous, often arguing about that point. Nobody should do this, and the current wording more clearly discourages it. Cool Hand Luke 19:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree if the material is challenged it should probably be removed but this blanket statement of it being unsourced and remove it seems extreme.  If it is something very small being questioned, a fact tag could be used.  The best biography FA's don't source every statement.  A large portion of the content of biographies in not sourced at the moment... should we delete it all?  This is wikipedia and we have to keep in mind that not everyone is a veteran editor.  Articles take time to grow and that includes sources.  Follow the normal Wikipedia policies.  What makes BLP a step above is with regard to areas of libel, slander, and the ability to hurt the person.  This is the information that we need to be very strict on.  Positive bias could follow the same way but I don't support some blanket statement that any unsourced material about living persons must be removed immediately... we'd have few articles and little content if everyone followed this.  You're essentially requiring that all material must have a source for inclusion, regardless of what the content is about and regardless on if it is challenged.  While a goal for FA, I think this type of policy goes against the wiki way for the ease of building quality articles by anyone.  Morphh  (talk) 3:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, we clearly want to put the onus on the includer to prove that the information is well sourced and not defamatory.  Well sourced by itself, morover, isn't enough. We cannot simply say "X has accused Y of child abuse" if in doing so we defame Y. --Tony Sidaway 19:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying 

message: Regarding this reversion by user:Brimba: the disputed language (the subject of the article) only applies to biographies. The proposed language (that person) applies to all BLP content. The edit summary did not address the reason given in my edit summary (making the language generic rather than biography-only, (diff)). Regarding the reasons given for the reversion: (1) Longstanding: I think it crept in due to this edit. This was an improvement on the longstanding but ambiguous language the subject but introduced the problem I flagged up. It probably went undetected due to the subsequent revert war. It's much too narrow, unlike the policy text it links to. (2) Proposed language awkward and less clear: please improve it. Thank you. Avb 11:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-generic language 

message: The policy currently fails to distinguish between  a persons work and the person themselves. Scientific articles will often discuss a persons work, and if they are controversial (particularly in the case of a scientist in one field venturing into another) crit of that work. This should be addressed (see William M. Gray for an example) William M. Connolley 15:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point, William. I see merit in finding some wording that would clarify this important distinction. One thing is to says "Y says that X is a charlatan" and another is to say "Y says that X's theory is based on insufficient data", for example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that's a big loophole. "I'm not saying that he's dishonest! I'm merely saying he's a criminal by profession!"; "I'm not calling him a plagiarist, I'm merely saying his work is a copy of mine!"; "I'm not calling him incompetent; I'm merely saying his work reads as if it were written by a drunken monkey!" --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It could be a loophole. But the point should be addressed. Your examples fail the unreasonableness test. My question was how far the very stringent BLP stuff that applies to talking about a person should apply to their work. Are you saying that it is so hard to police that no distinction can be made? William M. Connolley 16:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When the person's work is central to their lives - and in very many cases it is - I would say that yes, criticism of their work does cause harm to the person, in a BLP way. In fact, many scientists will suffer considerably less harm from personal accusations than from accusations about their work. If you say that Professor Doe is fat and balding, he'll shrug and admit it, but if you say he's wrong in his theory, he'll write forty pages to twenty magazines protesting he's right. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand your point but using a very strict interpretation such as this may result in any BLP article being stripped of criticism or negative material, lowering the accuracy and quality of all BLP articles and resulting in them becoming not much more than fan pages. Gmb92 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would point out that I am not arguing about removing all negative commentary from BLPs.  The primary concern here is limited to self published sources being cited as a reference for negative content.  Content which has been published in reputable third party venues is certainly still suitable for inclusion because they provide at least a minimal level of independent oversight on any negative commentary that appears in a BLP.  --GoRight 05:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A person, and a persons work 

message: Any reason why Florida is mentioned in "must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies" ?  Bestchai (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I just found the answer at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_16#Florida.3F Bestchai (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florida 

message: I would like to recommend that the BLP policy be expanded to include images. My rationale for this is that, given Wikipedia's increasing restrictions on "fair use" images, in particular images illustrating the subject of an article, it has given rise to the uploading of a large number of very poor images, some of which, in my opinion, demean the subject. An example of this is the image currently used to illustrate Hattie Hayridge. I have determined that the image was uploaded in good faith, with the rationale that it was the only "free use/non-copyright" image available of the person. However as you can see it is a particularly ugly and unflattering image (note: I have made a big enough of a stink regarding this image in question that it may be replaced soon. The image I refer to is a shot of the actress frowning and grimacing). My concern is that if someone were to do something similar with someone who makes his/her living based upon their appearance -- a model, etc. -- they could see the image as demeaning and inappropriate in very much the same way as the BLP currently guards against the posting of content which could be seen to be libellous.
Perhaps this isn't the best venue to put this suggestion forward, however I really do feel that this should be addressed by BLP. Wikipedia management has made it clear that they'd rather see no images on an article than run the risk of using a copyright-violating image. I contend that the exact same rationale should be applied under BLP policy to images. Images don't always have to be pretty or super-professional in nature, but some common sense should still prevail. If you have two Creative Commons images, one of Angelina Jolie smiling and one of Angelina Jolie picking her nose, you don't upload the image of her picking her nose. And if all you have is the image of her picking her nose, then better to leave the article unillustrated until such a time as a better image can be obtained. I acknowledge that there is always the danger of WP:NPOV being violated, but I think a line has to be drawn between POV and common sense. An expanded policy should address this, of course. 23skidoo 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly possible to have an image that violates BLP, but it has to be pretty bad. The one in :Image:Hattie_Hayridge.JPG merely shows her frowning; while accusing someone of picking her nose in public is generally seen as at least a little derogatory, few people claim they never frown in public. If the subject wants us to display a better one she is welcome to make one freely licensed, and we should certainly pick the best one, but we shouldn't automatically delete all content that is merely imperfect and replace it with nothing. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen people try to use police mugshots as the main image, and others take very bad photographs of subjects — not deliberately, but just because they're not professional photographers — then get upset when other editors suggested the image was so bad it might be a BLP violation. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, an image that denigrates someone could be a violation of the spirit of BLP. (although, actually, it is probably easier to remove it on the grounds that it misrepresents the subject, gives a false impression of their looks, and thus is not factual enough to be presented as a typical likeness in a biography. WP:NPOV is quite sufficient. Presenting an image as a 'typical likeness' when it is not - is simply unencyclopedic.) But I'd say we deal with this on a case-by-case basis. We don't need a specific rule or guideline here unless we've evidence of a general problem.--Docg 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - nasty pictures may be problematic, "insufficiently flattering" should not represent a problem.  This Hattie Hayridge pic seems pretty reasonable - sure she's frowning, but it doesn't seem to represent her negatively (neutrally, maybe).  Expanding the guideline is probably conterproductive, anyhow. WilyD 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we please add a note about using mugshots! Editors should not be adding mugshots to articles unless they are related to some crime that the subject is notable for. It seems that every time a mugshot is posted to smokinggun someone inevitably decides it needs to be added to Wikipedia. I believe this qualifies as a "general problem" and I've had a hard time using only WP:NPOV to fight it (as many newbie editors insist that photographs do not convey specific "points-of-view"). Kaldari 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a very poor idea. Yes, we sometimes have low quality images of living people - my favorite example remains Richard Schiff. The difference between these and libel, though, is that people can easily upload high quality images of themselves under the GFDL. If they are unwilling to do this, we make do with the best free image we can find. Yes, this is us using our position as a top ten website to push people to contribute more free content to the world. No, this is not something we should have problems with. Phil Sandifer 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Phil. What makes a picture flattering or unflattering is very subjective. NPOV requires we find the most neutral, neither pretty nor ugly. But writing policy to cover it would make more problems then it would solve. I thnk existing policies and good sense are sufficient.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see something about this in the policy, though it needn't pin us down too much. I've seen quite a few editors try to stick it to a BLP via an unflattering photograph, and it'd be good for the policy to remind them not to do this. Whether the subject provides us with a free one or not, I don't think we should allow pages to embarrass people unnecessarily. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have difficulty imagining how this could be codified into policy without violating WP:NPOV and requiring subjective evaluations on the basis of personal biases. I think it would be better to allow each case to be evaluated individually, through community discussion, giving primacy at all times to WP:NPOV. For instance, I think we can all agree that we shouldn't include in BLPs pictures that depict the subject while drunk (even if the image is free content) unless the image contributes significantly to a portion of an article (e.g. a portion dealing with a specific, noteworthy incident of drunkenness). However, I don't see how we could codify into policy a provision regarding the degree to which an image is embarrassing or inappropriate. For instance, most WP editors wouldn't have any problem with using this image; however, in some countries and cultures, that image is downright shameful ... it exposes arms, the neck, and what seems to be a tattoo. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I continue to think that this is a policy that formulating is only going to cause us problems. Do we even have a significant problem with this, or is it pure WP:BEANS? Phil Sandifer 14:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right. I'm dead against any "rules" here. But there's no harm in articulating some guidelines - it gives us something to point the clueless to, and perhaps to help the semi-clued think a bit. Nothing in the above would take precedence over sensible discussion on a case-by-case. But see the recent  fuss] to see that simply verifying the image doesn't preclude such things being used to push a negative impression of the subject.--Docg 14:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to suggest people consider that rewriting this might weaken our efforts to track down fair use violations. In particular, I recall a concern at John Howard that the free image made him look sadly gnomic; if people felt that that was a BLP violation as well, they would have edit-warred to introduce a non-free image. (They did anyway, with less justification, IIRC.) I don't believe that that is something we would like to see.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Free images should not always trump non-free images (or no images). If the free image is not in line with our policies, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Kaldari 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A picture of someone frowning and not in keeping with their public persona is not a violation of our core policies. Relata refero 05:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the wording of this suggested policy addition and I support its inclusion 100%. This is very much needed to fight off trolls like Getaway who want to smear people through Wikipedia, some of which are sophisticated enough to know the WP:NPOV policy and argue their position no matter how transparent their motives are. Kaldari 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to expand WP:BLP to include images 

message: If a guideline is thought needed (and I'm not sure on that), I'd submit the following: 
#"Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and to giving a factual impression of our subjects, usually demands that images (of whatever aesthetic quality) should be a fair and typical representation of the individual. An image which is not typical may be sometimes used, but only where the context merits it; and in such cases the particular context should be clearly indicated within the article."
#"Since images communicate an impression of the subject, an image should not be used to give undue weight to some negative aspect of the biography. The use of a potentially embarrassing image, or its prominence, should reflect prominence of the aspect it depicts. For example, a mugshot should never be preferred to a more typical image, and should only be used where the individual's arrest is an important aspect of the biography. The prominence given should reflect the significance of the arrest."
How's that? I'd still say this is mainly about WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. It is only a BLP issue in so fat as BLP demands that these policies are taken VERY seriously with living individuals.--Docg 12:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to think that this is a policy that formulating is only going to cause us problems. Do we even have a significant problem with this, or is it pure WP:BEANS? Phil Sandifer 14:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right. I'm dead against any "rules" here. But there's no harm in articulating some guidelines - it gives us something to point the clueless to, and perhaps to help the semi-clued think a bit. Nothing in the above would take precedence over sensible discussion on a case-by-case. But see the recent  fuss] to see that simply verifying the image doesn't preclude such things being used to push a negative impression of the subject.--Docg 14:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to suggest people consider that rewriting this might weaken our efforts to track down fair use violations. In particular, I recall a concern at John Howard that the free image made him look sadly gnomic; if people felt that that was a BLP violation as well, they would have edit-warred to introduce a non-free image. (They did anyway, with less justification, IIRC.) I don't believe that that is something we would like to see.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Free images should not always trump non-free images (or no images). If the free image is not in line with our policies, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Kaldari 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A picture of someone frowning and not in keeping with their public persona is not a violation of our core policies. Relata refero 05:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the wording of this suggested policy addition and I support its inclusion 100%. This is very much needed to fight off trolls like Getaway who want to smear people through Wikipedia, some of which are sophisticated enough to know the WP:NPOV policy and argue their position no matter how transparent their motives are. Kaldari 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested wording

message: Can someone else weigh in on this sourcing discussion for this BLP: Michael Ledwith?  An editor wants to add accusations from a victim's rights group site to the aritlce.  The document appears to be an offical court document posted there, but the site itself doesn't look particularly reliable - I'd like to get more eyes on it just to make sure...Dreadstar † 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added an audio source on the talk page, can someone review this as I would like to amend the article?r011in (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ledwith 

message: I think that maybe we should expand this policy to include those that are very recently dead, out of respect for mourners. After all, you'd feel pretty pissed if someone was suddenly off to harm the reputation of your late loved one, wouldn't you? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we go not with the letter of the policy but, if you'll pardon the pun, with the spirit - the recently dead would be covered already.--Docg 19:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, there's no reasonable boundary to how recently someone has to be dead before the living no longer get upset at their reputation being harmed. Muhammad has been dead over a thousand years, yet a billion people get highly upset if something bad is said about him. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but if your father died yesterday, we don't suddenly think "hey, this is no longer a BLP, we can relax the rules"--Docg 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We think "we can wait until tomorrow"? We think "let's wait until his children all die too"? We think "let's wait until his children no longer care about him?" What do we think, actually? What is the limit, and what are you basing it on, please? Is there any limit? How about "this policy applies to anyone who was ever alive?" --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, yes. Until then, let's use discretion, sensitivity, and common sense.--Docg 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good on ye. But why restrict it there? Common sense clearly dictates that a policy called "biographies of living persons" doesn't apply merely to biographies of living persons. Sensitivity reminds us that people can get offended by perceived harm to not only living or recently dead people, but also inanimate objects, or even concepts. (Flag Desecration Amendment, Stone of Scone, Al-Aqsa Mosque, ...). When this policy clearly applies to all articles in the Wikipedia, our next mission will be to apply it to the outside world. Onward Wiki Soldiers, Marching As To War! With The BLP Policy Going On Before! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, whatever.--Docg 20:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. But I think that this common sense policy shouldn't just be pigeonholed into just being a policy concerning living people. Crusade on anyhow :)  —  Rickyrab | Talk 06:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, controversies about living people do need to be addressed, if information is to be comprehensive and NPOV. In addition, this should likewise apply to all phenomena, people, or objects, living or not.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 06:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, common sense -- as well as the English language -- certainly does dictate that a policy of biographies of living persons applies only to living persons in the literal sense of the word. The usual standards of R, V, and appropriateness of content are sufficient for everyone else. DGG (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRDP 

message: I have added a section that I believe puts into words the consensus of what best practice is in the area of applying BLP to non article space. I hope everyone sees fit to agree that we need such as section and agrees that what I wrote is close enough that it is better to tweak it in place than to remove it to talk. Thank you to anyone who helps to improve it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  non article space