Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 17

message: A quick question about this.  Is this saying that the content should be removed without discussion, or that the content should be removed as it's unsourced or poorly sourced material, and then discussed?  --Son (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends what it is, Son. If it's very damaging, remove it immediately without discussion, then try to have a discussion about it on talk, but without repeating the allegations. That can be tricky, so if you have difficulty doing it, look for an admin to help. If the claims are not very damaging, you can discuss them more openly. Really, it's a question of common sense. The rule of thumb with BLPs is: if in doubt, remove the material, and seek an admin's help if you think anyone might try to put it back. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly right. Well said. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks!  --Son 06:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy issue 

message: No idea what the lame edit war is about - but please not on a key policy. Let me know when you've sorted it out and I'll remove protection.--Docg 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what it is about either, but I think it's innocuous enough not to merit full indefinite protection. A little back-and-forth is sometimes to be expected even on policy pages. It doesn't look like a particularly disruptive dispute, and it has been more than 24 hours now. I'd suggest just removing it for now. If it blows up into something nasty, we can take further action later. COGDEN 17:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One "side" seems to be making no effort to get the issue sorted out, I'm afraid. What's the plan given that, leave it protected forever? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Should BLP distinguish (and have different policies) for voluntary public figures and involuntary public figures (i.e. people accused of high-profile crimes and/or acts, or for other reasons)?
The latter are not notable for only one event, but they are "public figures" for a different reason. Should BLP place more restrictions on involuntary public figures than are outlined by the existing "public figures" section ? WhisperToMe 15:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In practice, there has been held to be a difference. Our article about Little Fatty became a cause celebre and the argument that he didn't originally ask for the publicity was influential in turning it from a reasonable length article into one line in our article on memes. Compare to Angelyne or Justine Ezarik as other relatively minor celebrities who seem to actively promote their fame. Can you propose a sentence to say that? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My inclination is that there should be no distinction. In general, as I see it, the main reasons we place special restrictions on BLPs is (1) to ensure that Wikipedia never gets sued for defamation, and (2) to prevent potentially illegal invasions of privacy. In either of these considerations, the reason a person is a public figure doesn't really matter much. Wikipedia articles on infamous people or "15 minutes of fame" people are just as important as articles on celebrities. If a person is a public figure, I think that articles should be restricted from including information within the scope of that person's notoriety, even if that notoriety is unwanted. I know that can seem mean sometimes, but Wikipedia would never really be adding notoriety beyond that which was already created by journalists or other media sources. The nororiety has to exist before it is discussed in Wikipedia. COGDEN 17:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I admit, I don't want to be mean. Part of the reason I'm here is to make the world a better place, not a worse place, in just a little way. Yes, that's rather childish and naive, but there it is, none the less. Our founder has said "Wikipedia is not here to make people sad", so at least I'm not alone in that. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's necessary for BLP to distinguish anymore then it already does. However I think editors can, do and should distinguish between these. Also I disagree with the above intepretation of BLP. It's more then just about avoiding getting sued. It's about recognising that people's lives can be significantly affected by wikipedia and it is our responsibility as editors to avoid compounding harm while at the same time recognising our role as an encylopaedia is to present facts. Note that one key thing I've seen which I think is good is that increasingling editors feel a person's 'notoriety' has to be of significant scope and length to warrant the level of coverage. For example, we used to have an article about the Amir Massoud Tofangsazan case which was eventually deleted. There may have been notriety in this case but many editors recognised amongst other things that this only lasted for a very short time. Yet by having the article we were preseving this in an easily accessible form. Yes you can still find it elsewhere (although I suspect it will get increasingly harder to find) but in doesn't mean we should be one of the channels perpetuating it. Ultimately it's a tricky balance, difficult to set in stone but which I think is working resonably well at the current time Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voluntary public figures vs. involuntary public figures 

message: "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". "
Well, on that basis we should perhaps delete all references to living people, including edits by them...  
I don't see how this line adds to the policy. 
Rich Farmbrough, 10:35 8 December 2007 (GMT).
:I think this actually adds a lot to the policy. Often people think BLP is about not getting sued. In fact, while it's a consideration, our primary concern as I'm pretty sure the policy notes is that we should try to avoid causing unnecessary and unacceptable harm to living people by allowing claims to be made and information to be spread, whether on articles or talk pages that are poorly sourced. As the policy notes, we are also expected to respect the privacy of individuals whenever resonably possible. This means we should not include certain 'facts' in some case even if they are covered in primary sources. N.B. #Voluntary public figures vs. involuntary public figures which I only saw after writing this adds a lot to this discussion IMHO. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. There is a possible problem with the phrasing however. Hypothetical example. Let's say that the son of Fred Korth were running for political office today, and some documents were released which implicated that Korth himself had attended the first meeting of a group which came into existence to try to deal with the matter of what to do with JFK if he were to continue behaving in what they saw as counterproductive behavior. Let's go on to say that they only had one half-hour meeting, four days before the assassination, and that they agreed to meet later, but never did because of the assassination. Let's say that the released findings even indicated that there was no possibility whatsoever that Korth were involved in the assassination. Would his son's political career be toast anyway? Probably. Would that qualify as "doing harm"? Possibly, and certainly the existing phrasing could be seen as perhaps indicating that, on the basis of the above, we couldn't include such information, even though the two most relevant parties have been dead for at least ten years. In fact, some weirdos out there with a huge conspiracy fixation might even potentially try to kill the son on the basis of his father's attending that one meeting. Just how far does "no harm" go? Does it include information such as the above scenario which might deal at best periperally with living people? And does inclusion of, in this assumed case, information from neutral, reliable, verifiable, sources which might cast a negative light on certain living people by extension, qualify? John Carter (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do no harm 

message: Can the definition of "marginal notability" per WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards be clarified? The criteria has been used to delete the biography of a corporate board member, as is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 9#Angela_Beesley. The majority of editors in this article's 7th AFD insisted the subject was notable, but a declaration of marginality seems to give the closing admin a free pass. I had thought this criteria had been created with someone more like Brian Peppers in mind, and I find it disturbing its being applied to rather powerful individuals. -- Kendrick7talk 21:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say "marginal", it says "ambiguous". The two words don't mean the same thing. The criterion was misused on that DRV, I believe, due to someone not understanding the difference. Neıl ☎ 16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed you are correct. I feel a little hoodwinked here; ambiguity is a must clearer standard and I withdraw my request. -- Kendrick7talk 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marginal notability? 

message: The Criticism section states "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability" and "header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability." The Well known public figures section states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article".  What I'm running into is that any news published by a reliable source is "notable" but is barely relevant and certainly not important to the subject's notability.  Criticism sections get overrun with headers of the latest criticism, creating issues with unbalanced article structure and overall undue weight.  NPOV requires balance in each criticism so each section gets expanded to a point where a good portion of the article is just addressing the latest news story.  Editors point to the BLP policy and say that it is notable since it is in the news.  Are these policies in conflict?  I'm fine with including such criticism but it seems that something notable but not part of the subject's notability should be summarized and given appropriate weight for the overall biography.  However, the conflict in policy makes this difficult in addressing the dispute. Morphh  (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the two standards have a different scope, and thus aren't in conflict.  The former standard deals with when "the views of critics" should be included (e.g., "Editorials/critics/etc have accused [subject] of...").  The latter standard deals with when an "allegation or incident" should be included (e.g., "On December 12th, [subject] did XYZ...").  Also, if there IS a conflict (I don't see one), note that the latter standard is limited to a smaller population of living people: well-known public figures -- it might make sense to have a slightly different policy for well-known public figures who are antecedently notable.  Consider: certainly there has been notable, standard, and relevant lines of criticism of, say, the President.  But does that criticism "contribute to his notability"?  Probably not.  There don't seem to be BLP issues with including it, however. Fireplace (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second statement of article headers should still apply, which is from the NPOV policy.  If we create a header for each notable criticims, it creates issues with article structure and NPOV.  The headers in a biography should outline the important areas to a subject's notability.  This falls back to issues with a .  I can agree that we include the material based on NPOV weight and NPOV article structure.  This may limit the amount of attention you give to any particular "notable" subject in relation to the biography of the person.  Not saying to exclude it, but a brief summary of the news may be more appropriate than a paragraph and a header defining it as some major area.  So perhaps you're correct that they do not conflict, but the attention and weight you give to an allegation or incident should based on the relevance to the subject's notability.  We should look at the entire life of the person, perhaps from a historical viewpoint, and provide proper weight and sturcture for the biography. Morphh  (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict in policy 

message: Discussion Moved to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Michael Ledwith UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Ledwith 

message: BLP Noticeboard#BLP subject ambiguity. Worth noting in BLP or adding to relevant templates page? FT2 (Talk | email) 19:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DAB tag 

message: I am having a debate with a group of authors who maintain fraternity articles. Talk:Sigma Alpha Mu  They are arguing that if a fraternity publishes a list of living people who they claim are members, we should accept this as a primary source and proceed to associate these living people with that fraternity.  They have opened and RFC on the matter anyone interested in weighing in on the discussion it would be useful. Alan.ca (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraternties and clubs who claim the membership of famous individuals 

message: Pandon me if I'm being rude, but with popular articles (particularly those of celebrities and such), how the hell should one go about adding rumoured information if EVERYTHING rumored is deleted? I'm referring specifically to the talk page on Cassie, which has so many deletion tags that the page cannot even be read properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian-sama (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 December 2007
:Depends on what you mean by rumoured. The policy says: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia. If rumoured = "I heard it somewhere, I'm not sure where", take it somewhere else; we don't want it. If rumoured = the New York Times and the LA Times both say "there is a rumor", explicitly cite the articles as sources, preferably with links, and be prepared to argue, on the talk page, that the reports constitute a significant proportion of coverage and are themselves significant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem is that the "I heard it somewhere" rumors can't even be brought up on a talk page without apparently being attacked and deleted. What's funny is that, with proper discussion, they could otherwise be fleshed out, proven, and placed on the page. The talk page in question had an "I heard it somewhere" rumor that turned out to be true (Diddy or whatever his name is dating Cassie), but it was so zealously deleted that the page doesn't even have the information. Ian-sama (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Contentious material" 

message: Errol Louis as User:ErrolLouis believes that the Shankbone picture of him is disparaging, and wishes it replaced by a different image. I see no reason why this should be an issue, even if the supplied image may be of lesser technical quality, as it is affecting a living person. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Anything which could cause harm to a living person is covered by the BLP policy. -Amarkov moo! 05:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BLP states that material must be verified, neutral, ant not OR. The image provided was not really a BLP issue. But IMO this is a matter of courtesy (and therefore an editorial decision, not a policy one). -- lucasbfr talk 13:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Does BLP apply - yes.  Is BLP the right tool for handling this particular pair of images - no.  Editorial discretion is better.  The newer image, being black and white, is superior for some uses and inferior for others.  If the subject prefers one, and there are not strong editorial reasons to choose one or another, go with the one the subject prefers.  GRBerry 14:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A poor GFDL image often prompts someone to submit a good GFDL image of themselves (or their agent does it for them) - this is why it is better to have a poor GFDL image than a decent fair use one. Neıl ☎ 16:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: pretty much. If people don't like an image (as long as the image actualy is of them) they can provide a better one.Geni 10:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does BLP apply to images? 

message: For whatever it might be worth, I copied the text of the policy to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Draft by SSBohio and did a fair bit of editin, mostly to make the policy more focused and declarative, but also to address some of the implementation issues I've seen.  Please feel free to take from it anything that may be a useful edit to the policy.  I'm happy to answer questions about it as well, although sometimes I look back at my own writing and wonder what I was thinking.  --SSBohio 21:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft of some ideas for improving this policy page 

message: 4.3 reads "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." This is not sufficient guidance--it would depend on the event and the sources. If major national newspapers of record of a serious non-tabloid nature, (The NYT and the WSJ come to mind as examples) cover an event in major stories, then perhaps the event is notable enough that a separate bio is justifiable. Any ideas for more exact criteria.?DGG (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  one event 

message: I've created this shortcut purely as a housekeeping matter to enable the criterion to be more easily cited in deletion discussions etc. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ONEEVENT]] shortcut 

message: The paragraph currently states in relevant part thatWhen closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. There is no consensus about how much weight editors should give the subject's wishes; in that matter the closing administrator exerts discretion.However, many subjects, being relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia, request that articles concerning them be deleted for the sole purpose of preventing vandalism and defamatory editing.  If such deletions are effectuated, they result in the gratuitous destruction of encyclopedic content, since the placement of permanent full protection on such articles, and any content transcluded into them, would essentially prevent malicious edits.  As subjects of articles do not own them, Wikipedia has no duty to accede to the request of a subject that bears no rational relationship to the prevention of a tangible harm.  Deletion of articles upon request, then, should only occur where it is reasonably asserted that the requested deletion is necessary to prevent a substantive harm, namely, that the very existence of the article provides publicity concerning a non-public figure which is harmful -- see, for example, the sort of articles that formed the basis of the dispute in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I therefore suggest that the relevant paragraph be modified as follows:When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, and it is reasonably asserted that the requested deletion is necessary to prevent a substantive harm to the privacy of a non-public figure, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. There is no consensus about how much weight editors should give the subject's wishes; in that matter the closing administrator exerts discretion.  Note that full page protection, but not deletion, is an appropriate response to concerns relating to malicious editing.John254 16:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What happens if someone disagrees? Normal DRV process? There needs to be some sort of definable cut-off when someone reaches a point of notability that they can't simply opt-out. Could a US congressman opt out? Could a film actor? A recognized authority in a given field? What is the line that determines if someone is a public or private figure? Lawrence Cohen 17:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, if there is a consensus that the subject of an article is notable, the BLP deletion standards paragraph doesn't apply, and the article can't be deleted upon request.  There's no bright-line rule as to where the threshold of notability is, however.  Here's the problem with the way the BLP deletion standards are applied presently: even if the subject of an article is a notable public figure, some editors participating in an AFD discussion will claim that the subject isn't notable, based on purely subjective assertions of non-notability.  Then, if the subject of the article has requested that it be deleted, the administrator who closes the AFD discussion can delete the article, even if the only basis for deletion was to prevent vandalism and other malicious editing.  This results in the needless destruction of content, since fully protecting the article would prevent defamatory editing at least as well as deletion. John254 17:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed additional wording, appears to be instruction creep.  The previous wording seems to adequately cover the additional scenarios described in the proposed change; and the original version is more concise and is easier to read.  Dreadstar † 18:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The revised paragraph would be instruction creep, if we could apply this policy in a non-bureaucratic manner.  Since some administrators insist on applying the letter of this policy, even to situations in which it is counterproductive, it's necessary to expressly enumerate those situations in the text of the policy itself.  Would you believe that at this AFD discussion, an article was deleted for the sole purpose of preventing malicious editing, and that this action was upheld on deletion review? John254 18:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's somewhat of a misstatement of the deletion reasons as well as of the reasons the deletion was upheld. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a misstatement at all.  Let me quote in relevant part from the statement by the administrator who closed the AFD discussion:Mr. Finkelstein's concerns are very valid; a Wikipedia article is a prime target for trolls who want to anonymously defame the subject. Now that Wikipedia has become one of the highest-visited sites on the Internet, we have to take into account that things said on Wikipedia articles can and will affect the subject's life. We've seen this happen before; only recently, a professor was detained in an airport because his Wikipedia biography falsely stated that he had ties to a terrorist group.In other words, the article was deleted for the sole purpose of preventing malicious editing, a purpose far less destructively accomplished with full protection. John254 22:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it's a overstatement of the reason for deletion.  The closer clearly said that the question of notability ended with "no consensus", but the tipping point was the request by the subject of the aritcle.  I don't see how that would be a delete based solely on trolling or malicious editing.  There were good arguments regarding the marginal notability of the subject, so those cannot be discounted.  If there is to be a change in policy of this magnitude, it would need wide consensus.  As for it being a 'silly deletion', it was hurting the subject of the article...I see nothing silly about that.  Dreadstar † 04:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seth Finkelstein? The tech writer?? Are you kidding me? Hell, I almost just used him as a source for the Scroogle article. -- Kendrick7talk 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not.  Did you read the AfD? That's what I was talking about, the reasoning the closing admin gave - right or wrong.  Your link returned 444 pages, whereas Maureen Dowd, New York Times returns about a thousand times as many pages...notable?  And, um Google news. Dreadstar † 05:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I do have to admit that comparing the incomparable Ms. Dowd with Seth may be just a tad bit unfair..but..;) I'm really basing my comments on the AfD discussions, not my own research.  Dreadstar † 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, three articles in the last month. OK, so he's a weekly columnist, and the much older Dowd has written more than him. Try the full archive of Google News and it's 600+ hits. -- Kendrick7talk 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ach, ye did'nae jest refer to the lass as "much older", now did ya, laddie?  I'd give a thought ta rephrasing that...eh? Dreadstar † 05:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with John that a change should be made to avoid such silly deletions.  However, I don't think changing the paragraph is necessary.  I think a footnote could acomplish the same thing, without the instruction creep.  Putting Not all reasons for requesting deletion are reasonable and hold merit.(subject to rewording) as a footnote should acomplish the same thing without cluttering up the paragraph.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent idea. John254 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This proposal was prompted by this AFD discussion, in which an article was deleted for the sole purpose of preventing malicious editing, an action which was subsequently upheld at deletion review.  Many users who commented in the deletion review opined that the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLP_deletion_standards should be upheld exactly as written, no matter how how counterproductive in actual practice, until the policy was changed   . So, here we are. John254 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Based on discussion here, including concerns relating to instruction creep, I propose a revised version of the BLP deletion standards.  It is written with great economy of language, increasing the word count of the paragraph by only one.  Deleted languaged is shown in strikethrough text, while new wording is denoted by italics:When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted and may exercise his or her own discretion in fulfilling that a reasonable request. If the biography is deleted, editors may merge material to another article, if that does not thwart the point of the page deletion. Also, when merging content from a deleted biography of a living person, administrators should preserve the edit history to comply with the GFDL.This language avoids unjustified deletions by requiring that a request for deletion be objectively reasonable before an administrator may exercise discretion. John254 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In this context, "thwart the point" means to merge material to another article in a manner that creates a harm that the deletion of the article was designed to prevent.  For instance, if an article concerning a non-public figure is deleted due to the claim that privacy concerns prevent the mention of the subject's name in any encyclopedic content, it would "thwart the point" of the deletion to merge the deleted material to any other article. John254 03:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would send any request to WP:AFD with a diff to the request. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Prefer the shorter version, but support the longer version if necessary. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Your best bet is to sandbox it from scratch. Then when you have an article with all the sources publish it. If and when it gets speedy redeleted, then argue it at DRV. -- Kendrick7talk 01:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the discussion here, I'm going to implement the shorter revised version of the BLP deletion standards paragraph described above.  I would request that editors not revert this change unless they have a substantive disagreement with it, and are willing to participate in the discussion here -- per Help:Reverting, "Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously" At a bare minimum, this implies that users should not revert edits with which they have no disagreement, solely for the sake of process. John254 16:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLP_deletion_standards]] 

message: What is the procedure for undeletion of these? For example, if someone wanted to recreate the Finklestein article, and collected a hundred sources demonstrating he's such and such notable. Normal DRV? Is extra weight given to the fact he asked for deletion, and that the article was deleted for these prior borderline reasons? Lawrence Cohen 00:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your best bet is to sandbox it from scratch. Then when you have an article with all the sources publish it. If and when it gets speedy redeleted, then argue it at DRV. -- Kendrick7talk 01:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the discussion here, I'm going to implement the shorter revised version of the BLP deletion standards paragraph described above.  I would request that editors not revert this change unless they have a substantive disagreement with it, and are willing to participate in the discussion here -- per Help:Reverting, "Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously" At a bare minimum, this implies that users should not revert edits with which they have no disagreement, solely for the sake of process. John254 16:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Undeletion, standard process

message: I believe that a special section should be added to emphasize that undue weight is of particular concern in BLP, especially as it relates to negative content. As I read WP policies and Jimbo's comments regarding BLP's, it is better to NOT include negative content (even if it is sourced) if it takes more prominence in the article than the negative event has in the subject's life. The burden should be on the editor who includes the negative content to demonstrate that there is not undue weight. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an unresolved issue with wikipedia that needs more thought. In the case of people, issues, and such that are well documented, we merely need to reflect the weighting of claims in the article according to the most reliable/credible of the published sources. In cases of a singe event, we merely need to write about that event rather than pretend we are publishing a biography. In the case of a semi or ambiguously notable person we can delete the article if we lack reliable published sources to provide balance. But we don't yet have a good strategy for people who are too notable for multiple things to leave out yet not sufficiently covered by reliable published sources to present a balanced account - leaving us with the equivalent of a news clipping service on a person, corporation, movement, group or other news-notable but not yet encyclopedia-noted thing we wish to cover. One solution is just don't cover it since no other encyc does. Another solution is to label the article in some way saying it has due-weight or balance issues that we expect to be resolved over the years as more reliable published data becomes available and in the meantime we are sorry that at present it is no more than a news clipping article. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm also concerned that what sourced information we have on someone might be because it's negative; there isn't an article written about their excellent driving skills and children but an article is written about a scandal they're intertwined with. It wouldn't hurt to add suggestion that material seen as negative should be balanced with other information that isn't seen in that light when possible. I've seen at least one case where only the most negative aspecs of several articles were used. The editor may not have been attempting to do so but it sure felt that way. pointing them to some constructive suggestions could be beneficial to all concerned. Benjiboi 11:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The trouble with "undue weight" is that it is very imprecise. There's no way of calculating a formula to show how much space should be given to each topic in a biography. One way of judging proper weight is by looking at coverage in reliable sources. A person may drive every day and be a great driver, but unless they're a race car driver that fact will probably go unmentioned in any reliable source. OTOH, their alma mater may be mentioned in every biographical sketch even if college wasn't an important life experience for them. When the coverage in reliable sources is entirely focused on a single event, then that event may be better covered in a stand-alone article. However when we have a biography of a person who has been convicted of a significant crime, we shouldn't exclude mention of that crime just because we can't find any positive aspects to balance it out. Using the neutral point of view does not mean that all articles must be perfectly balanced between negative and positive material. People are notable for what's noted about them. It's not the job of Wikipedia to dig up dirt on an individual, but it isn't our job to bury it either. Regarding Frank LaGrotta, an example that has been raised by Jkp212 before, he was a relatively insignificant state legislator who rarely made the news until he was found to be part of a minor political scandal which led to his electoral loss to a political neophyte. To the extent that anyone will remember him in 20 years, it will be for that scandal, not for his chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on the Capitol Budget. Since it is the most notable event in his life, it should receive the greatest weight.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: An article on a " a very little known person" should be deleted on sight. Unless there are multiple reliable sources published about a person, we cannot construct a neutral article. See WP:BLP1E ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Our Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline says that the presumption is that all state legislators are notable. This legislator is more notable than most, and there are possibly hundreds of reliable sources available that mention him. An indictment is not "negative" material - it's a legal fact, just like winning an award is a fact, not  "positive" material. So long as it's been well-reported there's no reason to delete it much less the entire article. Jkp212 has had ample opportunity to research and add other aspects of the subject's life to the article, but appears interested only in deleting any mention of this indictment.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Before we answer that question there's a more urgent one to answer: "What is undue weight?" OJ Simpson, famous for his football and acting careers, was acquitted of the murder of his wife and her friend. Should the coverage of that trial be minimal in our article about him? Or do we acknowledge that that case received wide coverage in the media and therefore is an aspect of his notability? If so, what is the proper weight?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily my specialty, which I clearly acknowledge, so feel free to ignore what follows if that's what it deserves. Personally, I think currently he is probably as well known for his misconduct as he was for his sports and acting careers. On that basis, I personally think that the amount of coverage he receives for the trials and subsequent developments should probably receive more attention than his acting career (which honestly wasn't that much in the first place), and possibly roughly equivalent weight to his sports career. However, there is the question of whether there are already other articles covering the trial. There is a precedent with Joseph Smith, Jr. to have more than one article regarding a subject's life, and in this case, particularly with the most recent developments, that might, potentially, be one of the better options available. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're correct in your assessment of the relative weights for the Simpson bio. But the real issue here is how do we decide? What's the mechanism or formula that tells us how much weight to assign to a topic within a biography? When there is so much material that splitting out an event for further coverage then that can avoid weight problems, but many biographies contain less-important events that are nonetheless worth reporting.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, having stuck my nose in, I guess I should try to answer, shouldn't I? I'm guessing that no one has answered this question conclusively already, otherwise you wouldn't have asked again. Anyway, here goes. I'm going to assume, probably wrongly, that a biography article should cover the subject's life adequately in all regards, including coverage of potentially damaging events. Most BLP articles will, in a sense, have less material than that of the dead, because there won't be any postmortem recognition yet. I would guess that simply ensuring that the article at least mentions all the major highlights of the subject's life would be in order. Clearly, if the subjects themselves lay particularly emphasis on one or more incidents, it would be reasonable to ensure that there is enough content for the reader to be able to adequately understand it. Also, well, if the courts or other outside entities had little if any interest regarding the subject outside of a few key matters, then it would be similarly reasonable to ensure that those incidents are gone into with sufficient content to ensure a full understanding. I know that most of the articles we have can be reasonably substantially lengthened, so generally that shouldn't be too big of a concern. Also, clearly, if a given incident significantly involves more individuals than just the subject in a separate article, summary sections with any additional significant details regarding the subject specifically could reasonably be added to their articles, with a link to the outside article. I know wikipedia is not paper, and I know it might sound like I'm using that as an excuse to not be thinking too hard. In terms of this noticeboard, I'm assuming that the primary concerns would be incidents the subjects aren't particuarly happy to address very often? Maybe I'm a being a bit of a bastard, like Mom always said :), but I would assume that the subject's own assessment of importance aren't necessarily particularly important to us? Generally, just let the material develop as the writers see fit to do so, and maybe only ask about due weight when the concerns are raised. I really don't think that there could ever be a general "template" for the amount of material on any given incident or period, though. Yeah, I know, I copped out big time, but I guess I really don't have an answer. John Carter (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good assessment.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue Weight 

message: I've inserted the text of this Arbcom ruling into a new subsection. The Arbcom ruling made this de facto Wikipedia policy. For this reason, I believe it should be in the publicly-visible policy and available for community comment. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic human dignity 

message: I've added a few words emphasizing the need to omit unnecessary personal details on marginal figures.  I get uncomfortable when reading articles on borderline-notable people that mention who their husband is and so on. Of course, it's a different matter when we're discussing highly notable couples such as Bill and Hillary. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is one's spouse private information?  I see the point of someone's birth day number, which can be used for identity theft, and there is no reason that a year and month or just a year is any worse, usually.  But why would someone's spouse be sensitive information? MilesAgain (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, turn it around and look at it the other way. How does mentioning a spouse's name add to the article? If that spouse is well known in their own right then knowing their name might provide relevant data, but if not then I don't see that it adds anything of substance to the article - it's just a random name, a bit of trivia. Pairadox (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the present formulation of that paragraph is that it unequivocally assumes that the name of the subject's family status is irrelevant to their notability, though there might be particular circumstances in which the information would be relevant, or, indeed, subjects whose notability is derived from their family status.  I'm going to trim the specific mention  of family status from that paragraph. John254 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. The broad point was that we shouldn't give unnecessary details on the lives of marginally-notable people; the bit about family status was only meant as an example. I can see how it could be misconstrued as a blanket prohibition. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I'm a bit troubled by the haste with which this is being implemented. Is it common practice for the official policy to be changed with such a short discussion period? Or, in the case of at least two changes today, with announcements rather than discussion? Pairadox (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the "Basic human dignity" section described above is quoted directly from the findings of the Arbitration Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, so it has been effective policy for quite some time, even if never included in the text of the policy.  Aside from specific mention of family status, this edit merely restates the meaning of the sentence to which it is appended, and is, in my view, actually redundant -- it's certainly not substantively new policy. John254 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Someone's year of birth is more likely to be less relevant to their notability than the name of their spouse, but we include it because we want to be able to figure out how old they are.  How old they are is almost always completely irrelevant to their notability.  We include spouse's names, because we want to know who they are.  If Alice Obama phones in an order to your store, or otherwise comes in contact with you, it would be nice to know.  It's far more important than year of birth, and something people are likely to want to know.  Encyclopedias are supposed to be comprehensive, and in the absence of any reason not to include the name of a spouse (per the above) we should when we can. MilesAgain (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On privacy 

message: If a celebrity gets into some negative situation, such as getting arrested for drunk driving, it's covered by the press, but these events are often forgotten in a few months. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well_known_public_figures suggests that the BLP policy only concerns sourcing, and whether or not to include a (sourced) account of a negative event is an editorial decision. Is that a fair assessment? Gimmetrow 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
This and the WP:NPOV policy are intended to ensure that relatively minor events do not receive undue weight and that articles on public figures focus on what makes a person notable and provide a view that is encyclopedic, not tabloid, in nature. That said, articles should not be a whitewash. The intent is to provide a fair assessment. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hindsight is 20/20. It may be best to wait a few months to see if press accounts still mention the incident. For most folks, celebrities included, a drunk driving arrest is a minor event. In some cases, like that of Mel Gibson, it is a significant event. It's hard to make a strict rule that defines the difference.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrities and negative events 

message: Is this still relevant?  I thought that Wikimedia etc was all moving to San Francisco? Wjhonson (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine California has libel laws, too. Also, while the Foundation may be moving, the servers, to my knowledge, are not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law in Florida 

message: Is IMDB considered a reliable source for biographies of living persons? I am thinking that it is not. Can't anyone post info there? And they don't use any references? no? Please help. Kingturtle (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I would use IMdB for is confirming someone was involved with a movie somehow, or awards nominated for or won. Other trivia, no. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell it's good as a generalized source, so and so acted in several films; I wouldn't use for anything deemed controversial or likely to be questioned "top paid actor of 2005", etc. Benjiboi 17:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Without commenting on the usefulness or appropriateness of IMDB's listings of film credits and the like, let me emphatically state that IMDB biographies and trivia pages should definitely not be used as sources. Mike R (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMDb should not be cited as an authority for anything controversial, but note that the Writers Guild of America sends writing credit info directly to IMDb. Gimmetrow 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDB? 

message: Quick question. Do we have any policy on Bios where the subject is under 18? A "delete or we'll sue" "request" was made here and at the Irish language project citing "do no harm" and "under-18" reasons. The subject was flagged under NN previously on both projects anyway, so I'm sure removal won't be an issue in this case. However are there any policy/guideline issues we should consider for this type of case? Any lessons to learn? Guliolopez (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No; age is not by itself a criterion; some very famous actors are children. In the case of Robbi McMillen, he is 16 and we can easily wait two years or until he gets sufficiently famous that his request is no longer allowed to be given weight. He just isn't notable enough yet to ignore the removal request. Not yet anyway. Note that as a performer, he is actively trying to get notable and to control his publicity, so he may well achieve enough fame prior to his 18th birthday that this gets revisited. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a couple of cents from a professional journalist. Once someone enters the public eye (either willingly or unwillingly) they become fair game to a degree, and if they are in an entertainment field, it's fair game all the way because you rarely get people unwillingly going into entertainment. But of course just as (good) journalists have to steer clear of libel, so too Wikipedians have to be mindful of BLP policy. What that means is if Emma Watson decided she didn't want to be famous anymore and asked for her article to be taken down, she's out of luck. But if her lawyers raise an issue over an unsourced statement in the article, then that needs to be addressed, of course. Since the article in question above has already been deleted anyway, I can't comment. But if it's a case of his management trying to control messaging surrounding the guy, good luck -- I'd like to see them try this with the Times of London. 23skidoo (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bios on "under-age" subjects 

message: The "Privacy of birthdates" section says, "When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth."  In V.S. Ramachandran, the article subject objects to his birth year appearing.  Is this a CoI that should be combated, or should WP err on the side of privacy? Robert K S (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the year of birth widely known and in reliable sources? Benjiboi 23:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears in various biographical profiles of the subject published by newspaper media and alongside the subject's name in library catalog records of books authored by the subject. Robert K S (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Benjiboi's question.  In general sources do not report the date a person was born, but typically report the year, or the subject's current age in years.  So Encyclopedia Brittanica, so Gale Contemporary Authors Online.  I'm speaking just of living persons here.  If multiple, reliable secondary sources report his birth year, it would seem reasonable to include it. If it is only reported in a primary source, then I'd say no. Wjhonson (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I always considered this to be one of the more lamer parts of WP:BLP, and one that is weakly supported. At the very least, the birth year of a person (not the full date, but just the year) should be seen as fundamental to a biography. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for suppressing exact date unless it is a very well known person is because it is used by the ill-intentioned for invasion of privacy and internet fraud. But the year is fundamental, even if the subject would prefer not to have it visible. I think a primary source is quite acceptable, unless there is some dispute over it. it counts as routine information. DGG (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy of birth years? 

message: I would like an independent opinion on these edits:  and . I've removed the content. User is new.
Although the edit cites a page on msnbc.msn.com, it's in the "Tabloid Tidbits" section, is qualified as "may have" happened, and is based on a National Enquirer interview with "some guy who claimed to be" the friend of a named inside source. Stretches credibility, even with the msnbc.msn.com url. Gimmetrow 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to the linked article.  The section headers are "Entertainment, Gossip, Tabloid Tidbits".  So essentially they are stating that they are repeating, for strictly entertainment value, gossip reported in tabloids.  If we were to take that, and then repeat it on her page without all those understood disclaimers, we would be unethical.  Aside from that, I'm not happy with this repetition source.  They are not claiming they re-verified the data, in fact, they don't even state who the source was, so it's not clear they even know who is the underlying source.  I think we have to not allow this one. Wjhonson (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hiding it in a footnote really isn't the solution.  In any event, the MSNBC page says "A spokesperson for Holmes says the Enquirer story is false". Gimmetrow 20:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing this tidbit to MSNBC would be non-standard.  MSNBC states themselves, that they are repeating something from the National Enquirer.  Citing here, solely to MSNBC gives the false impression that MSNBC verified down to the original source which they obviously did not.  All they are doing, is repeating something from an unreliable source.  Repetition of the claim of an unreliable source, in a reliable source, does not confer reliability of the claim.  The reliable source must make a relatively clear assertion or inference that they verified the claim. Wjhonson (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly reliable source repeating speculation? 

message: Hi. Regarding: Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). Are we saying absolutely no blogs, even well-established blogs published by known academics? What if the scholar is quoting a book to which I don't have ready access? What if the scholar is providing bibliographic info for the bio? Can we not even list the blog entry in our own sources list? Might there be exceptions in which WP:IAR could be invoked? Thanks. HG | Talk 09:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs policy 

message: There needs to be some guide for the exercise of discretion. If that is the only justification for removal,  then, personally, I think it would never be appropriate to do this without a discussion at AfD. Obviously, if we are removing it for a direct violation of other provisions of BLPO, then the existing policy holds--this is just in case the removal is justified by borderline notability plus the request. Such can never be an emergency. I think the language John just inserted and SV removed was a good first attempt at improving the wording (a "reasonable" request) DGG (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fulfilling requests based on the subject's opinion 

message: Hi.
I saw this:
"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. -- Jimmy Wales"
Note that he said "this is true of ALL information" -- which means that every bit of unattributed material should be removed aggressively, not just controversial material on a living person. Although he says it is "particularly" true in that case, that does not negate the first part. Does this mean this should be pursued for every single bit of potentially dubious information on the encyclopedia and that ideally this strictness of BLP should apply universally to every single article on the Wikipedia? mike4ty4 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extend this strictness beyond BLP? 

message: Following discussion (started here), the "notable for one event" section was felt to be an inclusion criteria more suited to the inclusion guideline rather than content policy. The section was moved. It has now been moved back. I feel there is room for discussion on this issue. I'm putting a merge tag on it, which will direct discussion to the inclusion guideline talkpage: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28people%29#One_Event_merge SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 12:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to encourage others to join the discussion of the proposed merge linked above. Also noting that the WP:BLP1E shortcut currently redirects to the language at WP:Notability (people) guideline instead of to the WP:BLP policy, which may have been missed by many editors, including the volunteers at WP:BLPN. Avb 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: PS Perhaps this has some bearing on the confusion I think this may have caused. Avb 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Event 

message: There's a minor content dispute at the above article, regarding the use of the word "homophobic" in reference to Card. A link to the discussion thus far can be found here. I find the term itself quite incendiary in a BLP, even when sourced, but especially when it's only sourced (as it is) to an opinion piece from Salon.com. I'm of the opinion that if the article clearly elucidates his views through his own writings, and secondary sources reporting on his writings, that the reader should be left to judge whether or not these views constitute "homophobia." We've agreed that seeking an outside view from the regulars of this board is the best course of action here. Thanks in advance, and best regards, Bellwether BC 21:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. You might want to take this to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, which is the place to seek assistance regarding issues with specific biographies. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding [[Orson Scott Card]] 

message: This topic is raised in relation to a specific case (Matt Sanchez), but only as an exemplar of a wider issue.  This issue concerns the equity of preventing community- or ArbCom-banned editors from commenting on articles of which they are the subject.  Now, this clearly must intersect with the community benefit of preventing the disruption for which they are banned.  However, at present, such editors options appear limited to off-wiki communications or confidential communications to ArbCom or OTRS.  I have initiated a discussion at the ArbCom discussion page of this issue.  John Vandenberg has suggested it be moved here, which I am unsure about as the specific case will necessarily involve ArbCom.  I am therefore providing a link here and inviting comment. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP and Community- or ArbCom-banned editors 

message: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of contact information states "Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted." Maybe an explanation of the exceptions is warranted? Picaroon (t) 03:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contact information section 

message: Hi, I'm writing in response to having the link to the above website removed from the respective pages of Joe McGann , Paul McGann , Mark McGann, and Stephen McGann. I run this site with the full knowledge and co-operation of the brothers. I make no money from it and it carries no advertising, it is purely an information site to keep interested parties updated on the latest projects of all four brothers. I therefore wonder if you would please reconsider your decision to remove the link. Thanks, Micharris (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to www.mcgannbrothers.org.uk 

message: DGG and Ned, I'm wondering where the idea come from that material available solely from questionable sources is okay in BLPs, if used with caution?  I think this must have been added to the policy by mistake, because it really goes against the spirit of the policy, as well as WP:V. Do you mean if it's entirely harmless or something like that? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable sources 

message: The following restriction - "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article"  appears to me to be a tad excessive. I see no reason why we cannot just rely on a usual reliable source requirements without this extra restriction. Catchpole (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As one example, in articles on rabbis associated with an organization, we generally use the organization's website or bulletin for information about the rabbi's activities in the organization, much as an article on an academic would use bio information from a university web site (and an article on a company executive might use some company information). This is so even though we wouldn't use such sources if the information seemed defamatory, derogatory, embarassing, excessive, or otherwise questionable. There is a class of "self-published" sources that are typically used to fill details, relied on for general information but not for potentially derogatory information etc. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those websites wouldn't necessarily be regarded as self-published, though. By self-published, we mean that an individual, or a very small, informal group of individuals, has published something on their own e.g. a blog, with no  oversight of any kind, no fact-checking process, no professional or third-party input. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not restrictive, but expansive, to explain why certain otherwise inadmissible sources can be used reliably. As User:Shirahadasha says, we can use, but we screen and use intelligently, and take account of possible excess and lack of objectivity. But there are some distinction. The bios at some places are composed by the PR department, and are not necessarily to be taken at face value. At an academic site, there can be an informal description of someone's career, sometimes self-prepared sometimes prepared administratively, that is subject to puffery. There will usually also be a formal CV, and the facts in that can be taken as reliable--almost always. I have seen some things needing thought--people claiming or implying professor when the actual position is lecturer or clinical professor, and published papers that are not necessarily peer-reviewed, and books authored which may be only edited--and i am sure there are equivalent problems in other professions. But in general such vita are quasi-official. DGG (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That is a reasonable response. In my opinion there are occasions when a blog post can be a credible source. We should be able to use our judgement. The great big honking never in the sentence above just leads our more unreflective members to override any nuanced discussion. Catchpole (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very bad requirement, but unfortunately has significant support among people here, even as thousands of editors don't follow it.  The point should be credibility, but is not now.  The personal website of John Smith's mother is a better source for his birthday than the Chicago Tribune, but unfortunately some editors still resist the idea that expert websites should be used for non-controversial, non-contentious data, even prefering no cite at all. The goal behind the sentence is good.  The rigidity is way beyond excessive.  2005 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTT restrictions on self-published material 

message: Hi.
Does BLP provide an exemption from the three-revert rule? For example, suppose some dogged editor comes in and starts posting controversial unsourced material on the article of a living person. Then I revert the change, since it was not sourced. Then he tries again, and I revert. And so on, and I do maybe a dozen or more reverts before he gives up. Then I come back and do it again, persistently warring away his BLP-violating edits. Could I get banned for such action, or would it be acceptable? Remember: any unsourced controversial or negative material about a living person must be removed immediately, so if it comes back, I should have every right to revert the junk as many times as I please and as is necessary to stomp out the material. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the BLP policy "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals."  If you need help, you can bring the matter to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.--agr (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike, you can remove clear BLP violations as many times as you like, but it would be best if you asked an admin to take a look just to prevent 3RR reports, and to sort the situation out so the material doesn't keep on being restored. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP and 3RR 

message: Please see User:Carcharoth/Featured articles needing regular updates#Living people biographies (80) for a list of 80 featured articles on living people. Thought it might be useful to see how well featured articles are handling BLP issues, and also for people to check the articles for BLP problems as well. Carcharoth (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of featured articles on living people 

message: The question of how to handle a person of note who changes gender has been an issue with regards to musician Heather Alexander. Alexander ended her public performances as Heather in 2006 to begin transitioning as a male, and a year latter started performing again as Alexander James Adams. Efforts to document this have been stymied by the fact that Alexander James Adams is not notable in his own right and by his tentativeness in providing reliable sources of this change even while performing openly as transgender. 
Thanks to the hard work of several editors, we believe the article is now in good shape, is accurate and meets Wikipedia standards. A request for "Alexander James Adams" is being redirected to the Heather Alexander article, which provides information about the person Heather has become. Ideally, the article would exist under the new identity with the old one redirecting to that, but current Wikipedia does not allow for that. 
Given how the Biographies of Living Persons article does not currently offer guidance in editing a biographical article with regards to gender transition, I would like to offer the Heather Alexander article as a model for writing such guidelines. I believe that he will not be the last person of note to undergo such a change, and written suggestions from an official Wikipedia source would provide a big help in editing other articles. 
TechBear (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think MOS:IDENTITY helps address this and have greatly modified the article. We know, for instance, that Alexander James Adams wouldn't want his article at Heather Alexander so redirecting it to his newer male identity seems correct. Also we should greatly downplay his former gender unless the subject themself prefers something else as evidenced by their own statements on their website and in interviews. The article had separate section for each of Heather's and Alexander's career and discographies further emphasizing his former gender which was problematic. I have merged the discography and the career section is now separated by date. Also excessive her's have also been removed. Benjiboi 02:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much thanks for your expertise, Benjiboi. I was surprised not to find such a policy as part of this project but it is good to know it is part of the Manual of Style. And thanks also for the clean-up of the article in question. TechBear (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's still a bit wonky but at least better, as the subject continues to produce more music the issues will likely be resolved and gender transitioning can be uncharted territory for all concerned. Benjiboi 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Transgender]] people of note: Style policies for dealing with transition? 

message: JoshuaZ has reverted an edit I made on the page (diffs below). I don't think it's terribly important either way, but worth bringing up here. I changed "The New York Times" to "The Washington Post" in the following hypothetical example:
:A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. 
There is currently a controversy over whether the New York Times properly reported about allegations of a possible affair between John McCain and a lobbyist. The Times has been roundly condemned far and wide, even by its own ombudsman, and McCain has received enormous support. The reasons the Times has been condemned center around the responsible use of information by the Times and the involvement in the story of a private, not public person. (I think even JoshuaZ would agree with this description.) Since the example is meant to help readers understand the difference between covering public and private individuals and since the example is also meant to illustrate use of a responsible source, the new controversy makes it a little problematic. The example predates the February 21 New York Times story and couldn't have been referring to it, but (a) some readers might be confused and more important, (b) some readers will be distracted from the point made, (c) it's even possible that someone might think we were referring to this particular case. Changing to "Washington Post" hurts absolutely no one. 
Joshua, being punctilious thinks that  my edit may have been WP:POINTy. It wasn't. It was made in a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. My edit summary was pointy, but I think the Times and Wikipedia will survive an edit summary. It might be argued that JoshuaZ's edit was pointy in that it slightly hurt the encyclopedia, but I'm already feeling ludicrous for typing this up this far. Wikipedia will also survive with the Times in the example, but it would be better for it to go. The proper forum for our disagreement is over at that AfD page. I'll leave it to other editors to decide what to do here, if anything.Noroton (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this has been resolved but the incident is certainly covered well in reliable sources so can be included if reported neutrally and dispassionately. Benjiboi 01:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper hypothetical example using the New York Times 

message: Hi.
Would having the deletion requirements for biography articles of living persons be lower -- much lower than that for other articles, and notability requirements much higher (to ensure to a very high level of certainty there is sufficient verifiable and accurate information to work with) be a good idea? As well as a "delete by default" attitude toward any new living-persons biography? In addition, I think that attack pages, pages that contain nothing but ultra-controversial and especially negative material should be an exemption to the WP:BLANK guideline -- even ordinary users should be able to "delete" pages in these cases. Does that sound good? mike4ty4 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BLPs that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced are already subject to speedy deletion under general criterion 10). As for differential standards ... there is already a propensity to approach BLP issues relatively aggressively, but I do not feel that an attempt to institutionalise a whole new class of deletion standards would be productive or gain consensus support (an official "delete-by-default" policy for BLPs was suggested and rejected some time ago). – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What would it be impossible to try to discuss and debate to the point where consensus support could be obtained? I'd like to see the reasoning behind not accepting the "delete by default" policy, and see if it was sound or there might still be points that are sufficiently arguable to once again thrust it into the fires of debate. mike4ty4 (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the reason for not adopting it is that it would be used excessively., We have enough problems with that already just dealing with admins. Is there some particular problem which you think this has caused?  DGG (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, Jimmy Wales has said, "zero information is preferable to misleading or false information". So how does that jive with all of this? That's where my reasoning for the "delete-by-default"/"tough notability" thing came from. Although I suppose you could argue that "yes, that is so, but it is not preferable to accurate and true information". Also, as perhaps an aside, I have a question about this: It has been said that bad material about living people should be removed aggressively. So why does this not (or why should it not) give ordinary members the right to "remove" attack pages via blanking? I think that the less such "information" is allowed to be seen, the better, and blanking makes it harder to see. That would give ordinary users some power to "delete" such harmful and vile articles until a "real" delete is performed by an administrator. If by policy it must be removed immediately then upon seeing it I would naturally assume I should have a right in that circumstance to use whatever means I have to remove it immediately in the full literal sense of that word, which means blanking the page. Then again WP:BLANK is only a guideline, not a policy, and as is said in the tag, guidelines need to be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Since immediate removal of this material is required by policy and policy trumps guidelines, I'd definitely say that qualifies as an exception. mike4ty4 (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tough deletion policy on controversial BLP? 

message: We have the guiding principle "do no harm".  Do we, and should we, have a corollary for minors along the lines of "be especially careful to do no harm"?  I'm sure it exists at least in the minds of many, but is it spelled out anywhere? E.O. Green School shooting is the article that brings this question to mind, but I think it needs a general answer. Aleta (Sing) 20:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that case is covered under BLP, we should make it official and add that underage suspects in crimes are not to have their names included. Evil saltine (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that it would be helpful to have some guidelines to help address situations of legal minors both practically and in precedent. For instance, this case deals with a minor tried as an adult, should that matter or does another guideline already cover this. Benjiboi 09:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only issue with the EO Green School shooting article is that the minor isn't named in the article citing BLP, but the suspect's name is widely in the public domain, reliably. The fact the suspect is being charged as an adult is pretty irrelevant, but is the reason why the name is so widely available. Neıl ☎ 17:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would have helped to have that spelled out so editors such as myself could be told "you know, you have a point but see what the policy is on such..." It looks like minors as of yet untried or convicted can be named, I feel that's a mistake but if it's policy then so be it. It would have stopped a lot of well-meaning folks from edit-warring and it seems like this isn't the first or last time the subject could arise. Benjiboi 23:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles discussing minors 

message: Hi.
I saw this:
"Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies..."
So would someone's interpretations of that law, if they are based on taking it to the letter, be acceptable on WP even if they did not come from a lawyer or the person was unable to afford one? I'm not sure how far the "Wikipedia shouldn't be treated as legal advice" crap goes, and I don't think it goes this far: the more restrictivist leaning the better, since only less harm can come from having less bad material. mike4ty4 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can do it without a lawyer? 

message: Many editors don't know it, but the WP:BLP1E shortcut currently links to a section of the WP:BIO guideline and it has been linking there since December 11. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here for some suggestions about how to clean up the problem. Noroton (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  We have a mess with the WP:BLP1E shortcut 

message: What is the current situation with that? Please inform me in detail as to what the current consensus is.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP says: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles." What, exactly, are you unclear about?--agr (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What I meant to highlight was that the talk pages of BLPs have the "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons" on them, whereas the talk pages of non-BLPs don't, even though their content could still be BLP-related.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, any page has to adhere to this policy, just like any article has to adhere to all content policies we have. Not explicitly writing that on every single talk page doesn't mean we don't have to follow the rules, of course. --Conti|✉ 19:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More specifically, it is BLP material that is covered by BLP policy, regardless of the article it is located in. BLP policy does not apply to non-BLP material, as that is beyond the scope of the policy. mike4ty4 (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial, but sourced, material about living persons in non-BLPs 

message: This is in bold, in the second paragraph. I don't particularly like this phrasing, as it implies no discussion should ever take place subsequently, when it could and probably should, to prevent repeat occurances and increase understanding of the policy, particularly among newer editors.  Any ideas for rewording? Neıl ☎ 17:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's meant to place the burden of responsibility on editors supporting the inclusion of contentious material, but I agree that it doesn't convey the sentiment very well. Perhaps the simplest option would be to remove the "and without discussion" part... Black Falcon (Talk) 19:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense.  I've changed it - if anyone can come up with a better way to get the meaning across succinctly then feel free to suggest something. Neıl ☎ 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was also meant to say the deleting editor should not wait for a response on the talk page; maybe put back "without waiting for further discussion"?--agr (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the "without waiting for further discussion" language. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that ArnoldReinhold's formulation is preferable. The benefit of inclusion of this clause is to make it clear that opposing editors cannot simply revert removal on the grounds that there is ongoing discusion, or there needs to be a discussion. Removal first. This is longstanding and the new form of words is an improvement. I have made the change. BCST2001 (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Does "supporting the inclusion of controversial material" include (even if unintentionally) failing to remove such material (as opposed to adding or arguing in favor of such material) because the person glancing over it did not see it as controversial? mike4ty4 (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "removed immediately and without discussion" 

message: There is currently a problem with the Eliot Spitzer page regarding a breaking story. So far, the people editing the page seem to have done a good job in getting adequate sourcing. However, there has been a discussion started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikinews vs Wikipedia - the Spitzer example regarding how to deal with such potentially controversial and emotional subjects during the period when the controversial material is still "breaking news". I myself have just recently had to revert vandalism to the article. Would there be any possibility of possibly establishing a guideline or policy relating how to deal with such instances in the future? John Carter (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Breaking news" problems 

message: As Jimmy Wales' "Godking" status wanes, and rightly so, the reliance of this policy page on Jimbo quotes should substantially decline. The amount of Argumentum ad Jimbonem here is excessive. Mike R (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to ease up on the [[Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem|Argumentum ad Jimbonem]] here 

message: The reliance of this policy page on Jimbo's thoughts should be zero. He's been more or less caught with unclean hands once again, proving that bios of non-notable people (people not in paper dictionaries) are a CORE problem of Wikipedia. Just by reason of existence. Just by BEING there, they present an unending source of problems (legal, moral, time, money), and an unending source of temptation for those in power. Thus, I propose (for the zillionth time) that we do away with the damn things. Period. No exceptions except for LIVING people famous/notable enough to be in the Britannica, or some other paper encyclopedia. For dead people, this is not a problem, any trivial person has room in Wikipedia, since it's not paper-- who cares?  And by the way, this proposal will fix the problems with Jimbo's bio, also. None of those bad things need go in, however well sourced. Jimbo's bio just won't exist until he gets famous enough to be up in a paper encyclopedia. Which probably won't happen in his life time anyway. SBHarris 21:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lovely fantasy but not actually going to happen so is it even worth discussing?  --Fredrick day (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, although I can't verify this right now, I am myself virtually certain that Jimbo already does have an entry in a printed encyclopedia or online version of same, or other printed biography. On that basis, the fantasy is also probably based on faulty premises as well. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite your source (online only doesn't count, since they're all subject to the same living person notability-creep that WP is). And if so, and he's up in paper, no problem, he can stay in the WP. And be subject to the viciscitudes of being hounded by the tabloids. But other less famous people won't be here, and thus they won't be here to tempt people at WP to take cash or sex, to fix up their look. Nor will they be subject to meanspirited editing by anonymous people who have no idea what's it like to be targetted by the press-- until it happens to them. Seriously folks, this is one of two or three major moral/ethical problems facing Wikipedia right now. If you/we screw it up, you/we will deserve what we get. SBHarris 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  well take it to the relevent policy page then. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello? This IS one of those pages. Its THE BLP policy page if there IS one. The BLP rules, which CONSTITUTE the policy, are the main article that this is the TALK page for. Those rules need major modification. We reach concensus for it HERE. SBHarris 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  This page mainly cover the how/how not it does not really concern itself too much with the why (at least that's my reading of the page), which is why I'm suggested that you proposal would be more suited to here. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to earlier comments, it is more than presumptuous to demand a person cite a source to justify existing content to fit a policy proposal which doesn't even exist yet, isn't it? Having said that, check the October 2006 Current Biography. Out of idle curiosity, do you have any idea just how many such biographical dictionaries exist? John Carter (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not proposing "biographical dictionaries" or Who's Who or whatever your favorite bio source is. I am proposing paper encyclopedia deliberately so that it limits things to the REALLY famous, and also draws a bright line which is easy. There aren't many of THESE. And they all have strict space problems. Thus, they don't pick semi-notable sports figures, actors, business people, and so on. The Britannica didn't even HAVE living bios until 1911, which was a century and a half after it was founded. And you can bet that those it had were more famous than are 99% of the people bio'd in WP. The other reason to suggest paper, is so we don't get the famous "Clinton" or "Bush" defense of BLP policy. You can still write nasty-but-verifiable things about famous politicians, if that gets you off. And yes, I'll copy this to the PUMP. SBHarris 22:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like the 1137 encyclopedias that the St. Louis County Library has here? Or the 13,247 encycloepdias that are in the holdings of the various colleges in Missouri here? John Carter (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  what you are suggesting is that we become subservient to the POV of those paper encyclopedia - doesn't the proposal then instantly get run over by WP:NOT (a paper encyclopedia) and various other policies. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The idea that someone is not notable because they wouldn't be in 1000 page paper encyclopedia is nonsensical.  the world is full of mayors, assemblypeople, celebrities and notable professionals that wouldn't be in a paper book.  There is no problem now so we don't need a wildly illogical "fix".  We aren't made of paper. 2005 (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, of course. And as for your mayor, no, your mayor doesn't get to be here. If you want to find out about your city dogcatcher's sex life, however well it may be documented in some local scandle, you'll have to get it some other place than Wikipedia. Same for Jimbo Wales' sex life. Fair enough trade? SBHarris 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think it's completely absurd and I don't think you're at all properly contemplating the full consequences (either that or you have a skewed concept of how inclusive print encyclopedias are). Basically what you're proposing would decimate a huge portion of Wikipedia content, not just the absurd straw man of a city dogcatcher you propose. I doubt many articles dealing with anything occurring or existing in the past 50 years would remain untouched. Postdlf (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: This would be an awful idea; it is unclear what would constitute a person who would be in a paper encyclopedia. And the vast majority of BLPs are perfectly fine. The cliche is throwing the baby out with the bathwater; this would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and then sterilizing the parents. I've suggested before that we consider a specific policy of courtesy deletions for marginal notable people and what might be a reasonable standard for that. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. One standard discussed there is allowing courtesy deletions of someone if they are not a willing public figure. As I note in that essay, Durova has proposed the standard of "delete if deletion is requested and would not be in a paper encyclopedia" - this is a standard which is far weaker than that proposed above and even that does not fit with our current deletion practices in that it would delete many articles which the community has decided are definitely notable enough to keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for removal of all BLPs except for people notable enough to be in a paper encyclopedia 

message: There is an existing RfC over at Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign where, aside from the question of notability, one of the points at issue is whether or not the content in question should be in the article from a BLP perspective. I think this discussion would benefit greatly from the input of those who talk about BLP issues regularly, so I'd appreciate it if any of you could go over there and take a look. Right now the discussion is at an impasse and I think it's going to need more input from other editors before we can hope to reach consensus. Thanks in advance. -- Hux (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help required with a BLP issue 

message: I'm posting this here because, though the subject of the article is no longer alive, I believe his children are.
This diff has just been posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desi_Arnaz&diff=198326795&oldid=197729277
I don't have the reference material at hand tonight but I am 'assuming' for the moment that the information in the edit is true.
Question one - how does one decide if the episode described is 'important enough' to be included in the article?
Question two - should the information be left in or taken out of the article in the interim? 
I would appreciate feedback on this.  Wanderer57 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, first this should be at the BLP noticeboard, not here. See WP:BLPN. That said, I don't see any serious concern since the children are mentioned only in passing in this context. I'm not sure that the incident justifies mention at all though. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I will repost at BLPN.  Wanderer57 (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about this case? 

message: It looks like people are trying to use this for people that have died or recently died as seen in Talk:Heath Ledger. Since this specifically about the living some feedback on this would be appreciated. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this was proposed at some point, but it makes no sense whatsoever. At least in US law, libel is no longer a consideration. The material still needs to be properly sourced, as everything it wikipedia does, but it follows the ordinary rules. DGG (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Though I'd add that the policy still applies until the death is confirmed by reliable sources. Even once the subject is dead, BLP still applies to anyone who had a hand in their death (murderers, etc), so there would be some overlap regarding the means and manner of death. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But Heath Ledgers death is VERY confirmed so why is BLP being used there? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a really good question. It's not in the policy, so it really shouldn't apply to that article - though common sense, WP:V, and all the other relevant policies should still apply as normal. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the above be stated in the BLP article? I know its redundant but this article shows that it is necessary. Secondly can someone please remove the template from the Heath Ledger talk page since I have tried and not been successful since I was the only one seeing that this policy does not apply. Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd amend it a little, thus:
	While Biographies of living persons policies do not apply directly to this article due to the death of the subject, this article may have content that directly relates to other living persons, such as friends and family.Controversial material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard.
-I like it; though it states the obvious (WP:BLP is enforced on living persons), it clarifies the issues with regard to the subject. If there's consensus, I'd recommend templating it and trying it out. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool so what should we call the template? BLPdead? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd modify the first sentence to read, "While Biographies of living persons policies do not apply directly to the subject of this article due to the death of the subject, this article may have content that directly relates to other living persons, such as friends and family." Oh, and widen the box. Pairadox (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe without the bolding; I just did that to show what was being added. Personally, I found the "because they're dead" to be redundant (and kinda tacky), but that's just me. I would hope they already know the person is dead and reading that message isn't the first they learn of it. Haven't they read the article yet? Pairadox (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ok removed the extra bolding. Any other inputs? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None from me. Pairadox (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Somebody has now nominated the template Template: for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thanks :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have voted to delete and as a supporter of BLP I'll explain why. I feel having this sort of template is a problematic precedent. WP:BLP currently, as it stands, applies to only living people. Yet it's possible that any biographical article could refer to a living person, whether it's an article on someone who died a year ago or 1000 years ago. I understand the rationale,  but I feel the better way to approach this is to repurpose BLP to be an all-encompassing anti-libel policy that is mandatory for all biographical articles. Which would mean a heck of a lot of these banners would have to be added to talk pages, but BetacommandBot is going to be looking for something to do after the end of March, so it can always be reprogrammed to add it to all the articles. (That actually isn't meant to be as saracastic as it might sound - regardless of the general opinion regarding the bot, there's no doubt it's effective in placing content on massive numbers of article pages.) 23skidoo (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In practice I think its useful. agreed, BLP does not apply to the subject of the article of someone who is not alive. It applies to still-living people mentioned in the article, but that is true to all articles in WP--the reason why we need this template is because those ignorant of the BLP policy keep challenging it. But there is no reason to treat bio articles other than that with any special reticence or precaution besides our usual policies. In the US , libel is inapplicable--and i think I remember that the reason was so that historical (encyclopedic) truth could be debated without hindrance eventually--a good reason. NPOV requires equal treatment of all subjects. DGG (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't know. Can you be sued for defaming the name of a dead person? I thought that it was only about those that were alive hence the distinction. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications for the Dead or Recently Deceased