Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 15

message: This page is 289 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance. Seriously, no-one is going to read 289 KB. could someone please update the BOT's script, because that was no archive just now, Mizabot. (Not the BOT's fault.) Newbyguesses - Talk 08:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a problem with the bot blanking the entire page: see .  Thanks.  This page is so long that it could be split into three archive pages. --NYScholar 21:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. It would be a great idea if someone involved with the long discussion could summarize the main points. Noroton 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really do not like that suggestion [about "someone involved with the long discussion" summarizing it] very much.  People involved in the discussion have very distinct points of view on it and every time a summary is attempted, it seems to misstate what some people have said.  I appreciate the spirit in which you ask for this summary, but, if archived (since archived pages of article talk archives are not to be edited further), the table of contents serves as a summary of the contents of an archived discussion.  If the pages are broken up chronologically into equal parts, one should be able to find what what needs via the table of contents of each archive page. (?) Again, see my comment above: the bot created blanking of the page the last time it malfunctioned (archive 10). --NYScholar 21:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created three more archive pages which approximately 1/3 of this current page can be archived (moved) intact. I do not think that these parts should be further re-factored. --NYScholar 21:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Please see the note added to #External links above; the material there is now in Archive 11.  Thanks.  --NYScholar 21:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: [Please see the note added to #Regarding the desire "to amend the page in reference to external links" above; the material there is now in Archive 12.  Thanks.  --NYScholar 21:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: [Please see the notes added to previous sections (above; see toc) that are now archived in Archives 13 and 14.  Thank you. --NYScholar 22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a summary could be attempted by someone who has not been involved in the discussion?!  Otherwise, I suggest just consulting the table of contents of the archived talk pages for the topics discussed in them.  Thanks again. --NYScholar 22:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are reasonable points about summarizing. Thanks for taking on the archiving chore. Noroton 04:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  done 

message: Please help to correct the archive index.  I don't know how to do that. The bot that was doing that did not function properly earlier and had blanked the page: see link about that: .  Someone who can do so: Please correct whatever needs correcting in the script for the bot (which was malfunctioning earlier.   Thanks.  --NYScholar 22:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once the "Archive index" is corrected, it could serve as a "summary" of the contents of the talk archive.  --NYScholar 22:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive index 

message: After archiving this talk page into separate talk page archive pages (as requested above), I have made what I consider very minor typographical corrections to the project page.  I do not believe that any of them are contentious.  If any are indeed problematic, please advise below.  Thank you.  --NYScholar 23:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very minor typographical corrections 

message: In the sentence "These sites should also not be included as external links in BLPs or in material about living persons in other Wikipedia space." I added the phrase "or in material about living persons in other Wikipedia space."  I believe that that is consistent with the statement of this policy that precedes and follows this sentence.  It appears to have consensus. [I just added a "see above" cross-ref. instead; less controversial.] Note "These sites" refer to "partisan sites" and also to "obscure newspapers" (in intention); I do not think that is currently clear.  It should use the phrase "These sites and these newspapers should also not be included as external links...." Frequently in Wikipedia the "newspaper" linked to is actually a URL for the printed version of the newspaper (not the printed version of the newspaper) and the online version is, therefore, also "a site"; this discrepancy needs correction if "partisan sites" and "obscure newspapers" both stay in the sentence preceding the one that I added the prhase "or in material about living persons in other Wikipedia space" to.  While "or in material about living persons in other Wikipedia space" has been debated, "material about living persons" and "biographies of living persons" are both included in WP:BLP.  I believe this matter still needs further scrutiny.  --NYScholar 23:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again: "BLP" is a plural term in this policy.  It does not need rendering as "BLPs". --NYScholar 23:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed "BLPs" to "biographies of living persons" for clarity in the sentence. --NYScholar 23:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that those most likely to need to consult this policy are newcomers (new editors) to Wikipedia, and, for them, the use of "BLPs" in a sentence when "BLP" stands actually for "Biographies of living persons" can be confusing. --NYScholar 23:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, for the sake of clarity, I have made some very minor syntactical changes to the sentences (sentence structure; active voice of verbs); the passive-voice constructions are not only unnecessarily wordy and unwieldy (throughout this project page), but they are less clear than active-voice constructions would be.  Each time the agent of the action is submerged in a passive-voice construction, the sentence is less clear about who is supposed to be doing what.  I suggest (again) that the project page be rewritten identifying the agents of actions ("editors" usually) and using active-voice verb constructions.  Passive constructions are means of hiding the relationship between the agent and the action.  (This is just an editorial observation about syntax [sentence construction]).)  At the very least, project pages defining policies require the clearest expression possible.  (Throughout Wikipedia.) --NYScholar 00:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These very minor changes that I have recently made are simply examples of further changes that other editors could make to this and other project pages in Wikipedia.  I have to log out to do other non-Wikipedia work.--NYScholar 00:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I Support the version in its current form as edited by NYScholar with the following caveats.  (1) Saying external links must follow all policies of Wikipedia does not change the status of external links as described in current WP:EL guidelines.  If people believe the statement overturns WP:EL it may need to be clarified.  (2) I made a change to the "partisan websites and obscure newspapers" sentence so that it applies exactly the same to material in the article and material pointed to by external link. This clarifies some possible confusion and smooths oer an anomaly I myself introduced a few days ago with the phrase "these sites" that could be taken to impose a higher standard for external links than article content.  (3) I would support the language with or without certain of the changes, i.e, they are harmless in my opinion.  (4) The phrase "partisan websites and obscure newspapers" could use some more thought.  We can talk about that later / separately.  Wikidemo 05:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had been editing for over an hour and made a lot of very minor syntactical changes; I've tried to incorporate your change after the editing conflict that I encountered.  Please examine it and see if it does what you intended.  Thanks. --NYScholar 05:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In making the previous changes that Wikidemo refers to above, I noticed that linking to the official policies page is useful because it links directly to copyright policies, which do pertain to website linking in "External links" sections and in "external links" otherwise in Wikipedia space.  So I think it's useful to have the page to consult via the link that I added to it.  (That is only one of several reasons to link to it.  Newcomers to Wikipedia are probably not even aware that the page exists.) --NYScholar 06:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, lots of copyediting.  90% is for the better and overall it is a significant improvement in the language (in my opinion) so I won't quibble.  Other than re-introducing the change I mentioned above (which we can discuss if necessary), I made two others.  First is self-explanatory, changing the admonition about being "cautious" to apply as before to the editor's actions in writing articles rather than the articles themselves, because a "cautious" article could be interpreted as an instruction to use weak or circumspect language.  Second, the new version had told article subjects who felt the article is unfair to state their objections, in writing, to wikipedia, citing the BLP rules.  Although that would indeed be ideal, people who find inappropriate material about themselves in an article may not be experienced editors or not wikipedians at all.  I don't think we should be stern in telling them what procedures to follow.  Within reason we should listen to any complaint they have in any form or forum they make it.  Also, I'm not sure BLP is the place where we tell them what to do.  Perhaps there is some of this in the COI, welcome pages, etc.  I hope everyone else is fine with this...you have to cross your fingers when making stylistic improvements so close in time to a dispute over substance, because the two can spill over into one another.Wikidemo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 06:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrase added 

message: I've changed this section to read as follows:
: Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.
: Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.
: In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, but this is not a licence to drag a private individual's name into the wiki.
I've performed the following removal:
: private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic -> private, living individuals
Obviously if we can write a good article without naming a private individual we should do so.  That's what the word privacy means: that you don't expect to find your name dropped into an encyclopedia article without very good reason.
: In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. -> In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, but this is not a licence to drag a private individual's name into the wiki.''
Equally obviously, we don't want to fuss around and drag a private individual's name into discussion simply because there is dispute on whether to use it.  The discussion can take place without naming the individual. --Tony Sidaway
:Although I support the intent of your edit (to avoid naming private individuals when it's not necessary to do so), I disagree with your changes. Your first change removes an important clarification that gives guidance on when it is appropriate or inappropriate to mention a private individual (i.e. if the individual is not directly involved with the article's topic, don't mention him/her). Your second edit imposes a rather awkard constraint on talk page discussions. It seems to imply that, instead of writing, "X said ..." we must write, "The subject of this dispute regarding inclusion of a private name said ..." or "The individual who brought forth accusations of misconduct also stated ..." or something similar. One problem is that this shuts out participation from anyone that is not familiar with the origins of the dispute. More generally, however, a coherent discussion is virtually impossible without identifying the subject of the dispute. I realise that there are certain cases where a discussion can be held without naming anyone, but I don't think that this can be codified as a general policy. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, trying to change a policy page to get the upper hand in a content dispute does not fill me with trust for you. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ned Scott, this is definitely not an honorable action.  That said, I think this policy should basically state that if the name could be easily found by a search for the subject on a search engine, there really shouldn't be reason to exclude it.  Censoring the encyclopedia to protect something that is already public knowledge seems rather pointless. -Nathan J. Yoder 06:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy of names 

message: OK, so that phrase is back in, despite the objections of enough editors on this page that it seems clear that it's not supported by consensus.  The arguments have been made several times, but the short version is that "partisan" and "obscure" aren't defined, and are thus open to debate; also, what may be "obscure" with regard to one subject may be authoritative with regard to another.
So, let's talk about alternative ways to express what "partisan websites or obscure newspapers" is getting at.
I had proposed replacing the offending phrase with "questionable sources", since that's defined at WP:V#Questionable sources.  NYScholar has a helpful discussion of the subject above, and if I'm reading him correctly seems to suggest "sources of questionable or dubious value".  I think "questionable" and "dubious" are redundant, and we don't need both.  How would people feel about changing the sentence so that it reads:
:Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.
Howzat? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems better. Less questionable. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Dubious value" refers to other language in WP:V referred to in WP:BLP: WP:BLP#Reliable sources: "high-quality sources"; sources of "high quality" elsewhere; websites of "high quality"; those not of "high quality" are "dubious" ["of dubious value"]  or "questionable" (synonyms). --NYScholar 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Synonyms are not necessarily "redundancies"; they are useful for emphasis; espec. if new editors might be prone to misinterpretation of Wikipedia terminology such as "reliable" and "verifiable" sources and "high quality websites". --NYScholar 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am unable to wade through all that verbiage, but am guessing that NYScholar doesn't like shortening from q&d to merely q. Let's try q&d, then, that's at least better than "obscure". --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that you are quite capable of reading "all that verbiage"; I took the time to write it to respond here, and I would appreciate it if you would read it.  I read your comments and I don't characterize them in any way.  Please see: WP:CIVIL.  Thanks. --NYScholar 19:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't "guess" about what I am saying; I stated what I mean, and to see what I mean, one does need actually to read it.  Please don't just "guess" and then restate what I said.  What I said responded to the questions posed in this entire section.  --NYScholar 19:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit that I'm slightly confused about what you're saying concerning the "source/website" distinction.  At times it looks as if you're arguing both sides of the question.  Are you saying that "sources" is or is not the right term to use in this context? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that is is quite an simple distinction: a website can be a source for a claim made in an article about a BLP, providing that the website is notable, accurate, reliable, not self-published by a third party, etc. as per  WP:V#Sources. External links sections in most articles have a somewhat lesser burden for reliability, but in BLPs we have tightened the threshold for inclusion so that there is no such a lessening of standards for EL sections as in other articles, as per the spirit of this policy:Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Partisan websites or obscure newspapers"

message: (edit conflict) Earlier I also questioned "solely" as unverifiable and requiring "original research" (WP:NOR); I believe it violates WP:NOR. Why is "solely" necessary or helpful or in keeping with WP:NOR? Material about living persons in biographies of living persons and material about living persons in other space in Wikipedia must not come from "questionable" (or, in other words, "unreliable and unverifiable") sources or websites. Period. If it does, instructions already exist to "remove" it "on sight". That has always been clear to us and the policy project needs to make that crystal clear (I think). It must not mince words and "beat about the bush" about this matter. WP:V is core policy in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NYScholar, can we please do one thing at a time? Otherwise we risk not getting anywhere. How do you feel about replacing "partisan and obscure" with "questionable"? [split comment from --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already responded to that.  I moved the part of my comment back to where I had originally placed it before AnonEMouse refactored it. --NYScholar 19:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Solely" is a different issue, and I can understand why "solely" might make a difference; if information that the President of the United States is having an affair with an intern is available "solely" on a partisan blog, that's one thing, if that information gets checked and reported by the New York Times, that's something entirely different, and referring to the fact is was first reported on the blog becomes highly relevant. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sources that are "websites" are defined in W:V#Sources. (The sections of WP:BLP already relating to "external links" (including all such links, as well as those in "External links" sections) already define that matter and include a link to WP:EL guidelines.  What is the "policy" in WP:BLP pertaining to "websites" presented as "sources" of "Material about living persons" in Wikipedia (whether it be through notes citations, references lists, or "External links" sections of articles or elsewhere in Wikipedia "space"? (The key question).  --NYScholar 19:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with it, though I'll note that "questionable" (even as defined) and "dubious" are even looser in definition that "obscure."  However, the looseness encourages people to take a common sense approach to figuring out what sources are dubious or lack editorial oversight, which is okay.  I've reinstated the clarification I've added before that seemed to get lost in the wide-scale reverts.  If anyone doesn't see why I can explain why the clarification is helpful.  Wikidemo 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply referred the reader to the previous section on "External links"; those additions to the sentence were confusing the intention of WP:BLP. [That is: WP:BLP#Reliable sources.] --NYScholar 23:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solely 

message: As per the very title of the section of WP:BLP#Reliable sources, this whole subsection deals with "sources". --NYScholar 23:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Reliable sources"

message: As I have stated earlier, I think that active voice would be clearer than the currently passive voice constructions.  Also, I think statement in the positive is better than a negative construction.  Instead of saying what not to do, one could more clearly state what to do.  People come to this policy project page for instructions to follow (what to do); the "should not be done" construction is hiding what to do in both a negative and a passive voice construction, making it harder for a reader to know what to do. --NYScholar 23:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Active voice

message: So, OK, maybe this is silly, I dunno. But do we apply BLP rules to articles about previous incarnations of living people? In some cases, I can see, maybe, how the current Dalai Lama could object to really negative content regarding one of his earlier incarnations being added. I don't imagine that this will be a situation that arises very often, but I guess it could happen. John Carter 21:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not help it but smile... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto: and I needed to. ... --NYScholar 01:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say that it may be a good idea to leave the page for a while, NYScholar. You will get a fresh pair of eyes in a day or two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reincarnation 

message: :These are active discussions; I strenuously object to this tactic of archiving still-active discussions.  Archiving is for when discussions are finished, not active. --NYScholar 19:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further objections: Requesting administrative assistance 

message: (edit conflict):Some of the discussion took place "in the middle of the night"/wee hours of the morning, and others have not yet necessarily had opportunities to respond to it. Two users do not make a "consensus" on when discussions about WP:BLP are "done". My views are misrepresented by another user, and I want to make that clear. I proposed a statement that alters the passive voice to the active voice and that does not change the policy of WP:BLP. The policy WP:BLP still adheres to WP:V (which includes WP:V#Sources particularly) as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:NOR. These are core policies in Wikipedia that all of Wikipedia must follow (not violate). If one has questions about how WP:BLP pertains to them, one must consult those project policy pages too. Thanks. --NYScholar 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you please state, clearly, what you are proposing so that we may consider it?  Thx, Wikidemo 20:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How am I changing what you write?  I thought you bolded your proposal to set it off from the discussion, not that the entire phrase is proposed to be bold on the policy page.  That would be a bad idea, but no matter.  It is perfectly appropriate that I restate your proposal.  The language is poor, and it does affect the meaning of the policy for the worse.  I am not going to get into a debate over the difference between bolding and not bolding a sentence.  Wikidemo 20:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please see my objections as stated above 

message: NYScholar proposes to change the sentence in the "Reliable Sources" portion of the policy page
from:
:"Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links (see above)"
to:
"Editors should be cautious in considering whether or not to include in Wikipedia material about living persons that they find only in questionable sources or sources of dubious value; if the material about living persons from such sources is derogatory, they should not use this material or these sources at all in biographies of living persons or [in biographical material about living persons] elsewhere in Wikipedia." [added phrase.  See below. --NYScholar 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not really see an improvement in the wording. Sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't either. The proposed version is very clunky and repetitive as well (e.g. we should exercise caution when considering, not be cautious in considering, if the material is ... they should not use this material, etc.). I think the use of the passive voice is appropriate in this instance. Notmyrealname 20:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the change as well, on several grounds.  The existing language is fine as it is.  The proposed revision is unnecessarily wordy.  It is harder to understand than the original.  It embodies a misunderstanding about the nature of sourcing and linking - NYScholar has been arguing that language like this will prohibit external links to pages forbidden as sources.  "Elsewhere in Wikipedia" overreaches the scope of BLP policy because it is not limited to information about living people: certain publications may (or may not, depending on how one reads it) are banned as sources about anything on Wikipedia because they contain information about living people.  "or as sources" creates a complex, indirect ban in the same way.  If we don't mean for the BLP policy to ban certain publications entirely, without regard to what they are used for, we should not adopt language that seems to do this.  If we do mean such a ban we should do so in clear, explicit language.  Wikidemo 20:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence proposed for [[WP:BLP#Reliable sources]] (Please comment below) 

message: "Editors should be cautious in exercise caution in when considering whether or not to include in Wikipedia material about living persons that they find only in questionable sources or in sources of dubious value; if the material about living persons from such sources is derogatory, they editors should not use this material it or these sources at all in biographies of living persons or in biographical material about living persons elsewhere in Wikipedia."
--NYScholar 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [My changes proposed here and below (as time goes on) are in response to comments by others. --NYScholar 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strike-outs and incorporated suggestions by others.  This is consistent with policy lede. --NYScholar 08:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised version of sentence above (Please comment) 

message: I have posted about Murray Waas to the WP:BLP/N so that seasoned administrators (I hope) can consider it.  I myself do not have time to deal with it any further. --NYScholar 00:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: regardless of any problems with this particular article, the proposed addition is instruction creep at best, and entirely unnecessary. BLP is a specific policy of its own, and should be kept as specific as possible. As worded, the proposal  would permit unilateral deletions of any WP article about a living person for all alleged reason whatsoever. DGG (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see "revised version" above (w/ strikeouts, incorporated suggestions by others.   Thanks.  --NYScholar 08:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:BLP/N addition

message: [Please see Archive 11.  Thank you. --NYScholar 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: [Please see Archive 12.  Thank you.  --NYScholar 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the desire "to amend the page in reference to external links" 

message: [This section is in Archive 13.  Thank you. --NYScholar 21:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective deletions and the GFDL 

message: [These three sections are in Archive 14.  Thank you. --NYScholar 22:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover the event not the person 

message: [This section is in in Archive 14.  Thank you. --NYScholar 22:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "obscure" removal 

message: [This section is in Archive 14.  Thank you.  --NYScholar 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current edit warring on this policy project page 

message: [This section is also in Archive 14. Thank you.  Repeated here due to its being an administrative notice. --NYScholar 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected for 48 hours

message: [This section is in Archive 14.  Thank you. --NYScholar 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BLP#Reliable sources]] policy section itself

message: [This section is in Archive 14. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection (immediate edit) request 

message: [This section and related subsections are in Archive 14 [and 15].  Thank you. --NYScholar 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The matter of external links 

message: I added some bold font in the policy page, thinking that I had seen it in earlier versions and that it had been inadvertently omitted in people's revisions.  But, having checked the editing history over parts of July/August, I don't find it in earlier versions; e.g., 15059912.  It apears that heavy editing and some edit warring perhaps was going on in the period of July to August 2007 (and post-August 12).  Nevertheless, I think the bold print is helpful (given the bold print in the next paragraph and earlier). I think it is a typographical improvement.  I hope that no one objects to my adding it. --NYScholar 00:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At some point we will copy-edit this page and likely make the format consistent, work on section headings, and get rid of all markup used for emphasis.  Project-wide, using markup for emphasis of policy statements is unhelpful.  But for now I'm not even thinking about these kinds of stylistic issues.  Wikidemo 03:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, it's not that important but I think it's mainly a question of legibility.  There's a guideline page somewhere that urges people to use as little markup as possible and to keep any markup use consistent.  That goes for italics, offsets, bold, putting things in boxes, etc.  True, it calls it out to people, but it doesn't explain to the reader why that one sentence is being emphasized over the others.  Is it extra important or just too easy to ignore/overlook?  Better to get it recognized through strong wording or simply trust the reader to follow all of the policies.  You can also turn some things into a bullet point / numbered list, and/or move the most important items up to the front. Wikidemo 07:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold font 

message: "please alert us on the BLP noticeboard." Who could this "us" be. Can't be the community because it talks about editors who would be part of the community alerting "us". Can't be the foundation because BLP notice board is not an accepted way of contacting the foundation. So who is it?Geni 18:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it just means please let everyone (in the Wikipedia community) know ("us" = everyone; many users and editors who are or are not administrators consult the Noticeboard for such "alerts").  At the top of the Noticeboard, there is a reference to "outside intervention": "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing Biographies of living people policy issues which require outside intervention."  The "us" in WP:BLP as quoted appears to be simply a general reference (to the Wikipedia community).  After a notice appears in the WP:BLP/N, and then "outside intervention" occurs, I do not know who the "outside interveners" are.  That is not clear to me.  I thought that "administrators" (who are editors who become administrators and thus "inside" Wikipedia structure)--WP:ANOT and Wikipedia:Administrators "patrol" the WP:BLP/N to see if they and/or others need to do something about reported (purported/alleged) violations of WP:BLP.  Clearly, they are not "outside" of Wikipedia.  Maybe "outside intervention" refers to action taken beyond simple editing (email communication with subjects of articles, lawyers, etc.; I do not know.  If "us" really is problematical, perhaps a less-problematical (and it is still only a request) would be:  "... please place a notice on the BLP noticeboard."  Then one would go to the WP:BLP/N to consult the procedures in the top, its links to various procedural policies and guidelines, and discuss those matters on its talk page as warranted. --NYScholar 19:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the sentence to more coherent syntax (following the conditional clause in start of the sentence): "If you have concerns ... please report them ...." --NYScholar 20:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, "us" sounds more friendly, but whatever :) -- Ned Scott 04:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Tbe BLP noticeboard is manned by volunteers, in the same manner of other noticeboards. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is this "us"? 

message: I have a question regarding acceptable sources when writing an article about a currently living scientist/scholar. Is it appropriate to cite the CV of such a person (which is often available at that person's website) as a source for some biographical data? Thanks, Nsk92 15:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that would fall under useing the subject as a source.Geni 16:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For specific language and limitations, see WP:SELFPUB.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In particular, a CV at an official University site is to a considerable extent subject to public fact-checking--people who tell significant untruths there relevant to their professional activities often end up unemployed, typically with public comment in RSs. such sites are certainly OK to use for uncontroversial material. I would extent that to CVs at official sites of any sort. (There are exceptions--one borderline academic's claims about a PhD could not be verified and the article was removed at AfD for that and other reasons)DGG (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources question - CV 

message: This is growing a bit complicated. :) In an effort to determine if pursuing policy clarification is beneficial, I'm going to try to figure out how much support there is for such a change. In terms of incorporating a policy, we seem to have three completely against (User:Geni, User:Ned Scott), & Vassyana. There are six who seem to believe some kind of guideline is appropriate (User:Maria202, User:Jmh123, User:Jossi, User:Krator, User:Dicklyon, and me. There's two undecided or unconvinced: User:Wikidemo and User:Will Beback. There's one neutral User:LessHeard vanU. There are two on whose positions on including specific reference I'm unclear: User:BCST2001 and User:Aquillion. Obviously, I do believe that inclusion of some specific guideline is relevant. I think the discussion that's been taking place here is evidence in itself that policy is not easily interpreted. (Updated at 17:38 on September 10)--Moonriddengirl 16:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Add me to the list in favor of including specific reference.  You can move this comment somewhere else if I put it in the wrong place. Maria202 13:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not at all. :) I just want to be very careful to avoid reading too much into other people's comments, especially when it supports my position. :D --Moonriddengirl 14:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against adding anything because I remain unconvinced that the problem is significant, and also out of concerns that it's biased to single out sexual orientation as a subject that's considered scandalous.  There are several more analytic steps we have to take before we should even think about adding a new policy section, even if we decide it is an issue.  We have to define the scope of the problem, where it comes from, exactly what mechanism to use to prevent it, and whether any proposed prohibition against something would over-exclude valid information.  I also caution if the intent is to gauge where the majority opinion lies, votes and polls aren't a good way to make policy, and that refactoring the comments of people who aren't even aware they would be taken as a vote is particularly unreliable.  Inasmuch as this is a policy page, we have to be cautious and make sure there is wide consensus on a point not just here but other places that might be affected (e.g. the sexuality and LGBT wikiprojects).   miWikidemo 15:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did publicize this discussion at Village Pump in the hopes of broadcasting the issue to others in the community. I'm all for making sure that everybody who might have an interest is involved. And my intention with the above is not to conclude with an "Okay, 10 for; 8 against. Let's go!" :) I am trying to determine if there is sufficient support for clarification to proceed with the discussion and clarify what objections there are and how they might be addressed. The conversation has grown a little sprawling, and I'm hoping to regain some focus on the original question of whether or not a policy clarification is appropriate. The chaotic nature of internet discussions makes it difficult to maintain focus. (Or at least that was my experience on On list guidelines, which eventually just trailed away.) I had not intended to "refactor" the page as I understand the term, as the original content is all still right here. But as you seem to think the way I've presented it may be confusing or objectionable, and that's not what I'm after, I'll gladly restructure it. --Moonriddengirl 16:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for the clarification.  In that context I think the discussion to date reveals that it's worth taking the proposal seriously, and depending on where that goes I'm not averse to putting something in the policy page once discussion has run its course.  So you can properly call me cautious and undecided, not against it.  Wikidemo 16:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So noted. Thanks for clarifying your position. --Moonriddengirl 16:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no opinion on whether there should be such a wording, I am helping with the language and clarity. I am willing to go with the consensus, and ensure the wording is as clear as possible meanwhile. LessHeard vanU 21:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for clarifying your positions. --Moonriddengirl 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current opinions seem to be

message: (comment/question a specific article, Glenn Greenwald) Given the discussion above (on the sexual preference provision), I was wondering about the specific case of Glenn Greenwald's article.  He self-identifies as gay, but it is not pertinent to why he is notable, so I'm inclined to take it out.  On the other hand, he is in the LGBT cat., and rightly so, and I don't like the idea of including (someone or something) in a category without something in the article to back it up.  So, should it be included now? Is there a different way to do it? And, does the change mentioned above affect this situation?  Any thoughts?  R. Baley 22:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, by proposed suggestion 2, if it were adopted policy, his self-profession should permit inclusion. --Moonriddengirl 22:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should never place an article in a cat unless it is obvious from the text why it is there. That's WP:CATEGORY; if it doesn't belong in the article, the article doesn't belong in the cat. The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Has any reliable source said that Greenwald's sexual preference has affected his blogging, or even the other way around? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Pmanderson, as far as I know the only mention of his sexuality was a "dust-up" in the blogosphere ("Hey look he's gay! and liberal! of course he doesn't like the bush administration!")  I didn't think it was relevant to his [notability myself, but as he doesn't care. . .well, I thought it might be a battle to take it out.  I guess I thought the category was appropriate, but I thought to put it in the article was undue weight.  But since I don't want categories without substantiation in the article, well you see my problem.  R. Baley 03:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see your problem. Category inclusion cannot be sourced. If the article doesn't source it, take it out of the category. (I have no objection to noting the source, whether his blog or some other, on the talk page, and waiting for developments.) It doesn't matter whether it's true; it doesn't even matter whether it's uncontentious: the threshold for inclusion is Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Inclusion in categories are not excepted from NPOV, V, BLP, and other policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking the article, however, it is sourced to a statement by Greenwald himself which describes other sources, some of them public documents. The category and the (short and neutral) mention should stay or go together, that's all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure that categories fall under V, RS, and SYNTH.  In practice, you'll find vast numbers of category assignments, mostly noncontroversial, that are are not directly supported by material in the text.  I don't see what it adds to our encyclopedic mission to either require that we add a sentence describing the sexuality of everyone in the LGBT category (or someone's racial/ethnic/religious affiliation for everyone in those categories), or to do away with those categories.Wikidemo 18:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the policy especially, regarding categorization of religion and sexual preference, really couldn't be clearer. Notmyrealname 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as this particular  article is concerned, he is a very notable blogger on controversial political subjects, and his openness about his sexuality may possibly be considered of relevance.  Indeed, he seems to make a political point of it with respect to US law, going by the article. DGG (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (reply to DGG) My memory concerning the relevance of his sexuality is that it became a topic because he was "attacked" (with words, not literally) for being gay and practically a foreigner (spends a lot of time out of the country).  That he is gay doesn't really make a difference concerning the arguments which he advances.  If he wrote about gay rights, for instance, that might make his sexuality relevant.  However, almost the whole of his writing concerns the Iraq war and possible future war with Iran (the media's coverage of the war, the white house's pursuit of it, and the enabling of democratic leadership wrt to white House's pursuit of war).  His sexuality is wholly irrelevant to these issues.  But on the other hand, it is reliably sourced info that nobody really seems to object to.  R. Baley 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific article question

message: I recently discussed with another editor the merits of including salary information.(1) There is a tradition in society that regards pay levels or salary as private information. But that isn't an absolute.  In many cases, such as soldiers, civil servants, politicians, bureaucrats, and executives of both corporations and non-profits, the base salaries are available through primary sources. In a very few cases, pay information is available through secondary sources (or even promoted by PR agents); most of those involve performers, sportsmen, CEOs, and a few other high profile categories. PR folks are often eager to release pay information about their stars, thouogh the info may not always be reliable. I see three basic distinctions and their likely disposition: salary info with no sources (delete); jobs for which salaries are available through primary sources only (annual reports, government pay scales, etc.) (delete); high profile jobs: 'commissions' movie roles, prominent artworks, sports figures, CEOs, whose figures are reported in secondary sources (keep). Is that sufficiently obvious in the existing policy or should we add a line about how to handle pay?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is implicitly covered in the Presumption in favor of privacy section.  I don't necessarily think it would be out of the question to add a sub-section specifically mentioning salary, though, just as there is a specific sub-section about privacy of birthdays.  I think the guidelines for both would be very similar. --Jaysweet 15:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I would generally agree with the first point.  But expanding and expanding presumption in favour of privacy to specifically list everything it might cover is unwieldy - birthdays get special mention because they're very commonly included in biographies, but might make some people testy. WilyD 15:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair 'nuff.  --Jaysweet 15:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pay 

message: Please see top of page for indication of what has been archived.  Thanks. --NYScholar 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated archive (15) 

message: I just deleted an addition that someone added w/o prior discussion; it is not a stylistic change:  The content added is: "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."
Such content needs discussion.  Adding it does not follow the warning at the top of the project page. --NYScholar 23:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you disagree with it or are you deleting it for the sake of deleting it? Wikidemo 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no interest in discussing the addition.  I simply deleted it because it should not have been added at all.  People editing the page are directed to the talk page at the top of the page.  Basing such a change on an experience at one article is not based on "consensus" on WP:BLP (this project page).  Who knows what they are experiencing there and who has the time to check every page where such discussions are ongoing?  The point is that any changes to WP:BLP that involve its content (not minor changes involving mere stylistic expression of that content) need prior discussion and then they need established consensus (which occurs over time). (I do not delete content just "for the sake of deleting it" or any other kind of frivolous reason.) --NYScholar 23:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: [Altered heading to be clearer what this is about: --NYScholar 01:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of "from all pages in Wikipedia" (as suggested in bold above and as Jossi just inserted) would "from Wikipedia" be less likely to lead to possible interpretive quibbles (e.g., what is "a page" vs. other "space" or whatever).  The phrase "from Wikipedia" refers to  the encyclopedia.  I think that is the policy in that (original) paragraph in WP:BLP.  --NYScholar 00:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The tweaking (not as minor as stated): I've altered the "from all pages in Wikipedia" to "from Wikipedia"; see editing summary: the replacement phrase has to incorporate all the previous items removed via the editing changes: "articles" ("article pages"), "talk pages", "talk space", "user space".  See previous discussion above.  Otherwise, I think the page needs to revert back to its original expression, which encompasses more than just "pages"; space includes "user boxes" and so on (which are often linked to and not "pages" but parts of pages and so on). --NYScholar 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously, the policy included: "articles,<note 1: Jimmy Wales: "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006> talk pages, user pages, and project space."  The phrase "from all pages in Wikipedia" incorporates only some of that: "project space" not necessarily a "page"?  ??? --NYScholar 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Though I have what I call a "quibble" with the sentence, my quibble is not related to the specific change being discussed.  I am fine with either Jossi's or NYScholar's formulation.  Neither is a change in policy, and I think that either is an improvement on the exiting language.Wikidemo 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "from all pages in Wikipedia" ---> "from Wikipedia"