Wikipedia talk:Basic dignity

message: *I saw lots of people starting to redlink to this, so I created a stub policy that other editors could add to and/or discuss.  Smee 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Started 

message: But "to document such ridicule" is wrong - if the ridicule has attained multiple non-trivial mentions in significant reliable sources, then the article could exist.  It would not, however, be about the person; rather, it would be about the ridicule itself.  Star Wars kid would be an example. Proto ► 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like this 

message: Just to toss in my $0.02 cents here, perhaps we might also want to examine the wisdom of leaving certain in-house discussions public?  For example: ANI, ArbCom, RfA, AfD? Many of these absolutely do accumulate what could be regarded as "documented disparagement" of a living person.  Especially in the ArbCom cases, where complainants are allowed to say pretty much anything they want about someone at the evidence and workshop pages, regardless of whether or not such charges have any truth whatsoever.  I do understand that there's a good reason for temporarily suspending WP:NPA and allowing people to speak freely during a case, so that the Arbitrators can obtain a clear and full picture of the situation.  But perhaps afterwards, we might want to consider refactoring or sealing (deleting) some of these discussions, so that they're only available to those with admin access?  --Elonka 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting idea, but I don't know... that opens up the door to some tricky situations...  Smee 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ArbCom

message: Walton monarchist89 has edited this essay recently.  I've removed one of his additions, specifically:
: What basic human dignity is not
: Basic human dignity should not be interpreted as a reason for deleting articles which are sourced, verifiable, and written in a neutral tone. Such articles are not attack pages, and do not come under CSD G10. If an editor believes that they unnecessarily disparage their subject, or do not make an adequate demonstration of notability, then they can be nominated for deletion through the articles for deletion process, and opened to community discussion
I think this is inappropriate to the tone of an essay.  Essays express an opinion that is held by one or more people, it doesn't express opinions about whether basic concepts such as human dignity are or are not appropriate reasons in and of themselves for deletion of problem pages.  That's a matter for guidelines, policy and community consensus. --Tony Sidaway 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll write my own essay. WaltonAssistance! 18:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent additions removed

message: Should this essay and the redirects WP:DIGNITY and WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY just be changed into redirects to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Basic human dignity?  The latter is policy and covers pretty much the same ground. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect? 

message: In April 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation published its resolution on BLPs that in part says we should take human dignity into account when adding or removing information. While most of that resolution is now unambiguously embodied in en.Wikipedia's policy, this point about human dignity is not. The nearest we come to it is "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." In the current Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute it is clear that a lot of editors exclude insulting or offending a person from their definition of "harm." 
I've removed other content from this essay that is already well covered by existing policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  22:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Foundation BLP resolution