Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive 2

message: I've renamed this to the shorter and more canonical (standardized) name blplinks.   works identically to how  did, and avoids two identical templates. 
The old name will work, but can the new one be used form now on for simplicity? 
Thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 23:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:template:blpwatch-links]] 

message: Should there be a link from the project page to requests for oversight? Andjam (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to oversight 

message: I see a bot is archiving this noticeboard. Are there precautions in place to ensure that unanswered requests don't get archived by the bot? It would seem sensible, given the important nature of some of the requests, that they don't get prematurely archived. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot archiving 

message: Why are the top 10 or so issues H3s and the bottom 15 h2s?  Is this intentional?  I can't see anything on the page to indicate that.... Protonk (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh.  I get it. Protonk (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading level 

message: Why was there no discussion here about the redaction of the article on Nadhmi Auchi to exclude news-worthy and significant items like the connection between Auchi and US Presidential candidate Barack Obama?  
I think that the redaction (which apparently happened this morning) was done without any regard to the facts of this case; it was, not to put too fine a point on it, a cover-up of a highly newsworthy event - the evident purchase of a candidate's mansion with the proceeds from a very shady multi-million dollar loan.
In this case, the article WAS neutral - its redaction by persons unknown was not.  The original article cited articles in the London Times, Chicago Tribune, the Guardian and the Independent, all reputable newspapers, which backed every point made in the article.vfrickey (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppression of newsworthy detail in a biography 

message: Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for wider input on discussion at WikiProject Tennis 

message: Is this Noticeboard the appropriate place for raising an issue about material concerning a living person that appears in an article other than a bio of the person?  I have twice removed material that I consider improper.  I've provided a lengthy explanation on the talk page, referencing Wikipedia policies.  If that's the end of it, fine, but if the material is added again, should I post on the Noticeboard?  (The person in question doesn't have a Wikipedia article.  His name redirects to the article about the subject that involves him.) JamesMLane t c 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The noticeboard is for anything that relates to a a living person anywhere on wikipedia per WP:BLP. Post on the project page, not the talk page though. Ty 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of this Noticeboard 

message: → In re: .
The Ongoing BLP concerns page which is transcluded on the main BLP noticeboard page is currently near 180kb and growing.  Of that total, "Porn actors' birth names" alone is about 130 kb.  Can those who know what's going on here check out the situation and remedy it?  Perhaps other sections (e.g. "Using the word fraudulent, and third party sources") should be vetted as well.  — Athaenara  ✉  06:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see I'm not the first to bring this up. Didn't notice it was in a transcluded page. But, again on that transcluded page, can we factor it out & link from there? - Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, the page contains no ongoing BLP concerns.  That can't be right, can it.  Have they all been resolved?  If not, a link to the transcluded ongoing concerns page ought to be inserted.  I don't know how.  Would someone please do it? David in DC (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge transcluded page 

message: Houston, we have a problem.  Threads are being bot-archived in individual archives, with the result that more than twenty of them have so far been created.   — Athaenara  ✉  06:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: A BLP rule says: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."  If everyone agrees that an edit is truthful and well-sourced, but there is no consensus that the material would be appropriate in the BLP (e.g. undue weight), then does this particular BLP rule say that the material must stay out of the article?  
I've got a situation where editors are evenly divided about whether some material should go into a particular BLP.  An editor that I've been dealing with says that consensus is required to REMOVE that material for undue weight reasons.  I say that consensus is required to add or restore it.  Who's right?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If in doubt, leave it out. Would a Request for Comment be appropriate? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Help!

message: Just a FYI post, really: In order to help facilitate easier location of potential sources of offline information to help verify the notability of article subjects and contents, I have created :Category:WikiProject reference libraries and placed into it all of the reference library pages of which I am aware. Please add more project reference libraries to this category if you know of more. Additionally, feel free to create new reference library pages for any particular project as well. They can be very useful. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference library category 

message: Where should I go for advice on an "Is it OK to say this ...?" question?  Mr Stephen (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to go for advice? 

message: This is last post I made on this subject's entry - Feb 11, now cannot find entry in current list or last entry. Before I go searching to see if someone accidentally or intentionally deleted it, is there something else that could have happened to it on this noticeboard? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive59. THF (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted nonarchived entries?

message: Hi. I was just reading the foundation-l thread on BLPs, and nosing around, and thought I might suggest that you add a link to :Category:AfD debates (Biographical) somewhere on this page. It isn't restricted to just living people, but it might be worth participants here keeping an eye on. 
or maybe add a categorytree like this somewhere:
AfD debates (Biographical)
That's all :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies' AFD category 

message: There is a concrete proposal to do something about this. See here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stemming the flow of unreferenced BLPs 

message: I've worked up an idea for reorganizing this board and its functions, I'd appreciate ideas/improvements/criticism that anyone might have. It can be found here. Thanks, Nathan  T   (formerly Avruch) 15:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design of the BLP noticeboard 

message: There is now a bot running to compile a list of articles reported to this board to make a problem-BLP watchlist. The list is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Watchlist and the watchlist is here. Mr.Z-man 19:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public BLP watchlist 

message: This case, as far as I'm concerned, remains unresolved and requires the community's attention, pertaining as it does to the Florida governor. It was bot-archived on May 29 (see diff here) without the question posed having been addressed at all, much less resolved. The discussion thus far went off on a tengent about general editing questions by two involved editors and no one on this forum has addressed the concern that brought this issue here in the first place: Should a so-called "documentary" indie movie be used to "out" a person who has not self-identified as such? The article lists a plethora of references in the section Charlie Crist#Outrage documentary, but most are reviews of the movie itself and don't even mention him by name. This section, as presented, unfairly leaves the Wikipedia reader with the impression that the so-called "documentary" has reliably outed the governor of Florida as gay, when no Florida newspaper has reported such.  JGHowes   talk 15:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but there sort of American political controversies are not really my cup of tea so I'm reluctant to get involved. However your comment that most sources don't mention him by name did strike me. I've reviewed all sources as they stand now, and only a few don't mention him by name. The NPR ones and the WP ones. The NPR ones perhaps have some merit because the Huffington Post source comments on the decision not to include the name. The WP ones however don't seem to have any merit so I've started a discussion about this in the article. If you come across other sources which don't mention Crist by name and don't have any relevance to the article on Crist, your welcome to discuss and try to remove them and bring them to the BLP/N if there is objection. As it stands though, the vast majority of sources do mention him by name (I'm not saying they're all appropriate). Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the WP ref Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unresolved BLP case [[Charlie Crist]] archived 

message: The archived talk for the Ali Khamenei article (1, 2) is chock-full of allegations and general attacks on the subject, much of which originate from the apparently now-banned . What's the process here? Should the threads in question just be deleted? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to be more specific. A (very quick) skim of the archives reveals nothing problematic. And it would need to be pretty problematic to justify deletion. Disembrangler (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Basically anything signed by Patchouli. I've removed the most OTT examples already; to be honest I think the rest is probably okay, but wanted to be sure. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk archives of [[Ali Khamenei]] 

message: I'm going to tentatively remove the backlog tag, as I believe I've dealt with all of the issues raised that didn't at least have one respondent. If there are any objections to this, feel free to revert me. Unitanode 20:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog alleviated? 

message: The specific discussion in question is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ian Plimer in Heaven and Earth (book).
The violation reported was the use of "See also" wikilinks to circumvent BLP RS rules.  WP:BLP#See also sections was subsequently added to clarify policy: 
:See also sections are not exempt from the requirements of neutrality and verifiability based on reliable sources. Links placed here do not need to be cited, but may not create implications that are unsupported by the body text.
This seems clear to me, but an editor at BLP/N maintains that it is not, and he may continue to add a "See also" unsupported by a BLP RS -- see Talk:Ian Plimer#BLP vs "Climate Change Denier".
Could an administrator please look in on these two pages and act/comment as he/she finds appropriate? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that's not how it works on Wikipedia. Admins have no special power in content or policy disputes. All they have is some extra buttons. My comment is on the page, but it is no more or less weighty than any other. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's also a huge misrepresentation of what happened. The see also section has been removed as it is being abused in this instance. Verbal chat 09:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, who removed the "see also" section from the policy? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was removed after discussion, look in the history. Its addition was found to be unnecessary. No need to apologise, in this instance. Verbal chat 08:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who closes BLP/N discussions -- and how? 

message: This is shameless publicising, but we've waited long enough. Time to raise hell.--Scott Mac (Doc) Flagged Now! 15:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition]] 

message: Another shameless plug. This is a simplified proposal to implement flagged revisions on the most vulnerable BLPs, avoiding the development delays of FRPR - please comment --Scott Mac (Doc) 16:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Targeted Flagging]] - new proposal to help BLPs 

message: As part of ongoing community discussion concerning issues surrounding interpretation of our BLP policy, I have posted Wikipedia:BLP examples for discussion. This page contains five examples of situations in which application of the BLP policy could lead to disagreements among good-faith editors. The examples, based on specific articles but intended to be discussed more abstractly, are designed for discussion either on-wiki and also as an aid to discussion of the problem at meet-ups where there is a session scheduled on BLP issues (including in New York this Sunday, January 24). Input is welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page 

message: Discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#A_request_for_consistent_application_of_NPOV_and_BLP. THF (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request for consistent application of NPOV and BLP 

message: There's a motion to close at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#Proposal to Close This RfC it might be useful if people commented.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP RFC reaching a conclusion of sorts? 

message: There is an anon that has been deleting material from the Rashad Hussain article. It is around the 3RR area, so I was wondering if anybody had any suggestions on how to move forward while retaining reliable information germane to the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rashad Hussain]] 

message: title says it all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people]] 

message: Please see User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Wales starts poll on "flagged revisions now"