Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 4

message: Given that the holding category is :Category:Living people, shouldn't this be named Wikipedia:Biographies of living people and  use the same terminology? --kingboyk 06:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matching name with category 

message: Comments requested at Template_talk:Blp#Image_change and Template_talk:Blp#Suggested_WP:BLP_logos. Thanks. Carcharoth 19:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments on BLP template image 

message: Based on court rulings that protects journalists.  In addition to NPOV and WP:RS and WP:V, we should explicitly say "accurate and disinterested".  THis is the standard by which journalists cover subjects that are notable but perhaps not famous.  Here is the case.  --Tbeatty 02:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would like to add language 

message: Hi, I've been concerned by the way the recent death of Steve Irwin was handled on the pages Steve Irwin and Terri Irwin.  I have commented on the relevant talk pages, and the responses have been courteous and sensible, but I wonder if this is worthy of some wider debate.  In short, I found it disquieting that the content on these pages was so bluntly edited and in so incredibly short a time (ignoring the inevitable vandalisms, which are not what i am talking about).  For example, having the whole Steve Irwin article edited into the past tense immediately upon hearing the news of his death seems unnecessarily brutal to me, and seems to serve no useful purpose.  The same with changing Terri Irwin's article from "wife" to "widow".  My preferred means of handling the events would have been to insert a Breaking News box at the top of the Steve Irwin article, stating that Steve had been reported killed, then that box would be updated to reflect the incoming news.  During that time, the main body of the article would been left essentially untouched (or even locked).  Once the news settled down, the article could have been re-written.  Now I have found that this point of view is not necessarily a popular one here, but I have had some comments of support.  I don't want to compormise Wikipedia's reputation for being incredibly up-to-date, but I think that that reputation could be kept intact in a more sensitive fashion (ie, mention the news as it is happening, but don't completely re-write the article while the news is still fresh.  That looks over-eager to me.  Anyway, whatever the concensus view turns out to be on this subject, I think that these kinds of situation warrant some considered and documented WP policy, if only to prevent the same old arguments happening every time.  Thanks heaps.  Leeborkman 05:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Haste maketh waste." John Heywood (1546) Lou Sander 12:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedure/policies when the subject dies? 

message: "Law.com: What is your liability for inaccurate information that's posted on the Web site?
Bradford A. Patrick: Our belief is that since every post is attributed to an individual, is time-stamped and is retained in the database, the foundation itself is not publishing that content. We view individual editors as responsible and have prominently displayed on every edit page that individuals are responsible for their own contributions. We take the position that we are a service provider and are protected under §230. We try to emphasize to everyone who posts that they, as publishers, have responsibility for what they add. " WAS 4.250 06:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI

message: The biographical article on Thaksin Shinawatra contains a link to Thaksin Get Out, which shows an image (Thaksin3.jpg) which I consider to be libelous and inappropriate for Wikipedia.  The text under the image claims that it is a protest poster, but the image metadata says that the image is a photoshop document.  What is Wikipedia's policy torwards defamations of an individual's image? Patiwat 18:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That image is original research, and should be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libelous images? 

message: BLP official policy: "While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles remain welcome to edit articles to correct inaccuracies, to remove inaccurate or unsourced material, or to remove libel." This policy appears to be a smokescreen. At the very minimum, there is no enforcement, and no provision for redress if a subject of an article feels that he is prevented from implementing the policy. There are numerous admins on Wikipedia who contend that a banned user who is the subject of an article forfeits this welcome, and has no right to "correct inaccuracies, to remove inaccurate or unsourced material, or to remove libel." That makes this BLP a dead letter, and it isn't worth the pixels it takes to display it. Remember, it takes only one admin to ban a user forever. I was banned by Gamaliel on April 5, 2006 because I was trying to explain that a new federal criminal law affects many Wikipedia editors. I appealed my ban to the mailing list and have proof that my appeal was received, but my appeal was ignored. I have been repeatedly reverted while attempting to correct information on my article. --Daniel Brandt 68.90.165.190 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, somebody in contruction of Wikipedia has forgotten to give blocked users access to Arbcom and ANI request pages to defend themselves, and also access to their own BLP articles and talk pages, if they have them. The first problems have been pointed out many times, to large yawning. This is just another case of blocked users treated as guilty-without-trial. It's ugly, and while it stays as policy, it says something about Wikipedia itself. SBHarris 07:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This policy isn't working at all 

message: The entire problem is that this is NOT the policy in a nutshell for BLP on Wikipedia. Which I suppose is why it's up as a wistful-ism on the TALK page, instead of PROJECT page. SBHarris 07:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Treat others as you would want them to treat you? LOL 

message: Hi.
Doesn't the nutshell seem to imply that for articles not about living persons one can be a little less (alhtough probably not a whole lot) rigorous about adhering/enforcing the NPOV and V policies? Is this correct? Or is a slight "laxity" on such articles as condemnded as ever as it is here, if you get my drift? If so, perhaps that should be made clear in other places, then? 70.101.145.211 02:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For living people, you can and should delete unsourced negativity immediately, without discussion or 3RR penalty. For dead people and other things, you talk it over first. Lou Sander 03:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We have a lot of unsourced science articles written years ago whose deletion would be considered vandalism. Sourcing everything will take time and the priority is where being unsourced can cause the most damage. Deleting thousands of articles simply based on rigorousness would damage wikipedia to no good end. That is also why we delete negative unsourced data on bios of living people - not to make it all nicey nice but because that is a priority because of potential damage. Nicy nice unsourced stuff in a bio of a scum-bucket who should not get elected can cause damage of a different kind and thus source or delete immediately can be important for nonnegative data in an article too. Please never forget we also delete true but not relevant to noteability data for not-so-important persons as they have a legal and moral right to privacy. WAS 4.250 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this "different kind of damage"? 70.101.145.211 07:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia exists to make the world better. People donate time and money to make the world better. Making the world worse defeats the whle point. The idea of Wikipedia is knowledge is a good thing. There are exceptions. Everyone knowing details of someone's life that they have legal privacy rights concerning is an example. Using that as an excuse to delete that someone running for office eats baby humans for breakfast is a bad thing. Nicy nice unsourced stuff distracting from sourced data that he eats human babies for breakfast is also bad. WAS 4.250 13:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *How* is it also bad, ie. how does it harm the subject of the biography? Or is it becaue it could mislead someone else into thinking that they aren't all that bad despite their deeds? 74.38.32.128 06:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the latter.  Imagine an article on Hitler with all the nasty stuff deleted and lots of nice fluffy stuff about how he was a vegetarian, and a great artist, and cared a lot about the German people.  Unsourced positive material about politicians and religious leaders is *very very dangerous*.
24.59.105.229 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutshell again! 

message: I just found some stuff on extremely strict libel laws that can be enforced against Internet publishers, cybercafe operators, etc. See it HERE. Lou Sander 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that Wikipedia incorporates considerations for Singapore libel laws into its policy? --kizzle 20:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just letting people know. Some folks think "Hey, if it's true, it's not libel," and "you can't libel a public figure." Others think it's cool to  take a little dope to Singapore. Lou Sander 21:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singapore libel laws 

message: Just FYI, the few editors that are active on the noticeboard seem overworked.  I made a post there days ago hoping to get some input from a third party "BLP expert."  Instead I am having the same back and forth with one admin that we might have had on our own talk pages.  I'd appreciate it if a few of you would take a look at WP:BLPN#Dave Carter even if it is just to tell me that I'm out of line.  The case is complex enough that it will take a bit of your time, so thanks to any of you that do this. -MrFizyx 03:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#How_does_living_bio_patrol_work. The Noticeboard, associated patrol WP:BLPP, and other issues are still very fresh and how to handle it is still building consensus. That said, I'll look at it and offer a TO or RfC. Electrawn 12:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]] seems short-handed 

message: I'm not sure how appropriate it is for Filceolaire to modify the policy page, particularly since his edit summary concludes that the Enquirer is not a reliable source. At one time, it is true that the Enquirer was not much more reliable than The Weekly World News. However, after several lawsuits some years back, they have vastly improved their journalistic practices. I would challenge anyone who believes that they are unreliable to provide any examples from, say, the last three years, where they got a story wrong. Crockspot 17:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifying policy page? 

message: Shouldn't biographies of living persons automatically be semi-protected? This would not only avoid vandalism and libel, but would discourage people from anonymously editing their own articles. Rm999 05:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but it is not going to happen because (1) the german solution is far better and some version of that will be implemented in wikipedia within a year (2) there is a very influential active and longstanding wikipedian subset of people (the word "group" would mistakenly connote organization) that is all about maximum freedom to the point of anarchy (3) Jimbo himself appears against it - perhaps for fear of killing the goose that lays the golden egg (the exact recipe for wikipedia's success is a matter of guesswork). WAS 4.250 08:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: I seem to vaguely remember some sort of policy similar to the BLP standards, only for existing organizations. Does anyone know of such a policy and where, if it exists, I might find it? There are several articles where negative nicknames are put in articles without citation. If there is a policy, I'd like to use it to challenge these kinds of uncivil additions. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises is a proposed policy. Tom Harrison Talk 14:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on "Living" Organizations 

message: WP:BLP instructs user only to remove unsourced criticism, not unsourced  content that praises individuals. The question I pose is when unsourced content that could be construed as criticism is present in an article, shoulda a user assume that WP:BLP applies and remove the content without discussion? For example, on the article on Kendrick Meek there is a section titled "The One Florida Sit In." The content in this section, none of which is sourced, could be damaging for Meek's reelection campaign because it shows discord between him and Governor Jeb Bush, or it could be a rallying cause because he's standing up to the entrenched interests. In summary, when in doubt about a content's affect on a living person, should we remove the content without discussion? I think so. DRK 04:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When in doubt...

message: His real name is available through the United States Trademark & Patent Office's website on the trademark of his gimmick name, yet someone keeps removing it (apparently his webmistress) citing that he doesn't want his real name available.  Should we leave it out even if it's citable?  --James Duggan 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the problem is that the article reads like it is about a person, when in fact it is about a character played by a person. None of the "facts" are sourced to credible real world documentation. It is possibly all fiction. The article should clearly distinguish between the fantasy world of pro-wrestling and the real world of trademarks, driving licenses, parents, contracts, and legal documentation showing birth and education data. WAS 4.250 09:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding the article [[Nigel McGuinness]] 

message: "Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life." - IMO that's pretty much the rationale for this policy. Well, the real rationale is bad press from the Siegenthaler fuss and Danny's ever-ringing phone. But this sentence encapsulates why living bios need the closest of attention. It may help alleviate the problematic use of the word 'sensitive', which has been taken in practice to mean 'sympathetic point of view.' Thoughts? - David Gerard 21:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life.

message: From Danny: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/business/media/25asktheeditors.html
You should all read this (you need to log in, but these things happen). It answers a pile of relevant questions for Wikipedia: notability, how to write a good bio, research ... fantastic stuff.  Our best bio articles resemble a well-written obituary, whether the person is alive or not, and too many of our bio articles only become any good at all when the subject dies and we have good newspaper obits to crib from - this article should be helpful to good editors in making good bio articles that are certainly up to NYT quality - David Gerard 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can glean any key points that you think BLP/WP is missing, please add them to BLP or elsewhere as you see fit. Thanks, Crum375 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NYT on obituaries

message: I am posting here rather than on ANI as I can't seem to tell if this has been resolved. So is this verboten under the libel policy on talk pages? --Mmx1 01:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems someone has discovered that searching YouTube for "Evil succubus;" results in a video "Blabber and Smoke" which has images of Condoleeza Rice. I would say per Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material that it fails on grounds of not meeting WP:RS standards and effectively being a conjectural interpretation, in regards to the serious import for which it is being cited, so it should be removed. The bottom line is that it does not demonstrate the required standard of conduct we are seeking to achieve towards living people. Tyrenius 02:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a whitespace between the link and "Evil Succubus". That was the user's label for the link, not the search query. (The result of such a query is less interesting). --Mmx1 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely then it's an open and shut case, and quite unacceptable for an editor to come up with such a title of their own devising as the obvious implication is that it applies to the person depicted in the video. I've reverted it and left a warning. Someone else will have to follow up, as I really am taking a wikibreak. Tyrenius 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Test Case?

message: Just a thought reading this... if the subject of the comment is known and identifiable, be they editor or subject of an article, BLP should plus NPA should apply. As in, if Tom Harrison were a known, living person, who could be libeled: Tom Harrison of Somewhere USA, known quanity. But "XP"--whos that? It's a fictitious alias. In that case, only NPA counts. Another way would be if Bill Gates were libeled, NPA counts. If he edited under the secret alias of User:RedmondGuy5, then only NPA counts, unless it was established that RedmondGuy5 is in fact Bill Gates. Then both again. That would seem most logical, straightforward, and plain. Beyond that, I agree with Jimbo's interpretation that all policy is applicable on all pages without exception, regardless of "space" they occupy. · XP · 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is an unnecessary complication. Keep it simple. Tyrenius 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good point. It was just a random (overly complicated) thought. · XP · 19:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon or named individuals

message: Maybe the policy should mention articles of this nature. Articles about Ann Coulter's books, for example Godless, frequently receive edits that defame the author, but it isn't crystal clear that WP:BLP applies to the articles about the books. IMHO, the policy should apply, and that fact should explicitly be made clear. Lou Sander 12:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, maybe put it in big, bold, flashing colored type so I won't miss it when I read it? [I could swear I looked and looked for it before making the above post]. ;-) Lou Sander 20:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * :) you are of course free to edit the page if you think it requires clarification. >Radiant< 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-biographies containing biographical material 

message: I've found that I've had to warn some users that are violating this, in a similar vein as a vandal - IP address users that pop in and write really negative stuff on a BLP. I've proposed a new template for these at Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Proposal_for_a_new_variant_to_test2 and am interested in opinions on this, especially if this is a bad idea. Obviously, it would have to be made absolutely clear that it is used for clear cases of this, such as this recent rv I just did. What do you think? --plange 04:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why we would warn someone who makes edits like that.  Just block them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User warnings? 

message: The comments made on this page over the last 36 hours or so have convinced me of only one thing.  Sarcasm is an extremely dangerous form of communication in electronic media.  I believe that all participants in this discussion share a common goal - creating the best possible open-source encyclopedia.  The use of sarcasm and metaphor instead of plain speech is creating confusion and discord where none previously existed.  May I ask everyone avoid all use of sarcasm on this page?  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the use of sarcasm should be banned from all WP spaces as un-civil, including edit summaries, except in article space where it is relevant and duly quoted from some reliable source. Crum375 13:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree 100%. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Me, too. Lou Sander 04:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You can follow the thread here. Crum375 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: IMO, this version is reasonable. However, edit warring never helped. The Civility talk page is not really getting to the point that sarcasm is never uncivil, just slowly figuring out what the terms of reference for when it is uncivil are. Unless I am interpreting things wrong. Ansell 12:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarcasm 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/weekinreview/08word.html - BTW, this is why public-facing levels of civility are needed on AFDs. They're not just internal communications. It's not mentioned in this article, but, doing press, I get people upset that Wikipedia has called them a "vanity author" when their article was marked as "vanity" and they had no hand in it, and asking who to sue. Explaining it's a jargon term only goes so far. (And I thought the word "vanity" was supposed to have been expunged from AFD vocabulary for this reason anyway.) To be sure, almost all such articles marked for deletion on AFD are just that ... but the term causes us a hell of a lot of trouble. If those who participate in living bio AFDs could please help keep such discussions at public-facing levels of civility, it would be most helpful to all - David Gerard 07:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This falls under WP:BITE, too. — Werdna talk criticism 07:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Big time - David Gerard 09:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have modifications been made to the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators or to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion to ensure we use a less accusatory or better terminology?--MONGO 10:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made an edit to the latter, let's see if it lasts. Feel free to rephrase less clunkily - David Gerard 11:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps someone would like to be bold and replace the word "vanity" in Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles and Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. The title of the latter caused a problem at Wikipedia:No original research resulting in the following : "See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.". (which is not the best possible wording due to this guideline: Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest.) WAS 4.250 17:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a note to both of those, and I've also added one to WP:CSD to avoid the word in deletion summaries too. Could others please keep an eye on those? - David Gerard 10:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD makes NYT! 

message: An editor keeps trying to cast doubt on whether he has a BSc in Physics by constantly changing the wording so it reads "He states he has a degree from Columbia University in Physics" - am I right in thinking this is a blatant violation? Adam Cuerden talk 12:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor in question should probably give evidence it is in doubt - David Gerard 12:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with David. Johntex\talk 15:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If evidence is not provided concerning doubt, could the phrasing "He states he has a degree.. " be considered in violation? --Iantresman 10:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Eric Lerner]]

message: What thoughts are there, or have been, about a similar criteria to this page for the other major libel target on Wikipedia, operating companies, specifically criticisms against them. Ansell 01:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is an excellent question.  Under US law, corporations have many of the same rights as individual citizens.  I don't know how this plays out with respect to libel specifically.  However, I do know that libel about Bill Gates is libel whether it occurs at Bill Gates or Microsoft or Xfm Manchester or at Housewife Bangers.  The title and supposed main subject of the article make no difference as far as the liability is concerned.  For that reason, I think our focus on living persons is too narrow to be anything more than a very incomplete fix for the problem. Johntex\talk 01:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you focus on companies/corporations, then you'd have to include organizations, institutions, religions, movements, political parties etc., which of course are broader categories than than just 'companies', which would then encompass a large part of Wikipedia article space. I think our basic neutrality and attribution rules should cover organizations and such. Crum375 01:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Johntex: Would you initially think that this page should be expanded, or that a different page for companies be created to reflect their different needs. Should everything be consolidated to Wikipedia:Libel. They seem to be the three initial questions to me. Ansell 01:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Crum375: The question I am trying to ask is more whether we should have a special response for organisations, as we do for people. Afterall, if they have the same legal rights, then we can be sued in the same way. Ansell 01:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there are so many possible types of organizations, as I mentioned above, that it would include a high percentage of our articles. I think our strict neutrality and attribution rules are designed specifically to be deal with organizations. I doubt a false claim about the derivation of Pi would result in a law suit or even a nasty letter to the Foundation (well, you never know), but obviously there are many types of organizations, not just corporations, and of course world wide, who could be offended and threaten legal action. The way I see it, we make an extra effort for living persons, everything else gets our normal high caliber strict set of sourcing and neturality rules. Crum375 01:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There has been some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles about ongoing enterprises. Tom Harrison Talk 02:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to the question from Ansell - my personal opinion (based upon an incomplete knowledge of all possible facts, as usual) is that this policy does little to prevent libel.  Clearly, higher powers at Wikimedia (including at least one lawyer, Brad Patrick) feel the policy is helpful, so I will assume they know something I don't.  For example, it may be a legal defense to at least show that "we tried something".  As I said, though, since I can libel Bill Gates at an article that has nothing whatsoever to do with Bill Gates, this policy is very incomplete, at best.  I think more emphasis on Wikipedia:Libel would potentially be a good idea to help us address all our other articles that are not biographies of living people, but where libel could occur due to a malacious editor.  (Hint, that's every single article because they are all at risk as long as anyone can edit them). Johntex\talk 15:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies of operating companies 

message: BLP states that we should "remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material" from biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. So my questions are:
*do  fixed dead links  equal a poor source?
*If one comes across controversial material cited with a deadlink, should one remove the material or simply 'fix' the link by dating when the website was originally retrieved (if a live substitute link can't be found)
I would really appreciate community input on this, since it affects a lot of pages and isn't explicitly stated in BLP. Geedubber 22:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe it is true but sourced by a dead link then do not delete it but instead act otherwise:ignore it, add a fact template, or move it to talk. If you have reason to disbelieve it and can not verify it because it is a dead link or any other sensible reason then delete it if it also seems controversial to you.. WAS 4.250 00:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That is why the  template has a "retrieved" parameter. Some links go dead after a time, but if you have the date of retrieval, readers can attempt to use the WayBack machine at http://www.archive.org/  to verify it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadlinks and BLPs 

message: Including information from the subject is listed as always OK.  Now, it's certainly always OK to note that
the subject _said_ something.  But some subjects are well-known to be inveterate liars.  The policy should note
that when there is geniune argument about something, information from a subject which does not have legitimate third-party verification should _not_ be presented as fact.  This is a serious defect in the policy -- one which particularly affects bios of politicians.
24.59.105.229 12:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy says you can only use information from the subject if "it is not contentious". Wouldn't that address your concern? Crum375 14:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable information from subject 

message: What is the general concensus on dealing with well-sourced criticism of a BLP? Should it go in a Criticisms section or should it be weaved into the general prose/timeline of the article? I thought I saw mention somewhere that a separate section should be avoided as it could be a troll magnet, but now can't find it. Thoughts? --plange 15:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is better to weave it into the article. Jimbo has a quote on this somewhere. But that's a matter of good writing more than anything else. In the process of creating an article, placeholder subsections are often useful for relevant sourced claims until they can be woven in. Criticism sections should be viewed as temporary placeholders. WAS 4.250 15:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plange, you can find Jimbo's quote here.  Sandy 16:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is the actual link. Crum375 16:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion on criticism sections 

message: I fully understand the concerns with libel, but I have to say: the way this is being applied, it seems like some figures who are "controversial" at best are getting a free ride. The way this is being interpreted, it seems that positive remarks about them can be sourced to their own web site, or a local paper that probably printed their press release intact, etc., but negatives need to come from major mainstream media, and neutral media at that. 
For an example, of what I'm talking about: take a look at the Fred Newman article. People are objecting to citing Chip Berlet's writing on Newman on the theory that Berlet is non-neutral and that his book was published by the organization he works for (which people are characterizing, I think misleadingly, as "self-published"). But some of the favorable material on Newman has awfully thin citation. - Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the assymetry is that there is no legal liability for producing positive information.  WP:BLP was created to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits. Ramsquire 00:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But clearly this is not being applied only to potentially libelous material. It is being applied much more stringently than that. - Jmabel | Talk 01:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatever the original reason for creating BLP, the proper reason for BLP is that saying negative things about living people has a potentially catastrophic effect on those people, and so must only be done with great cause and extreme care.  Wikipedia does not exist as some pure, ethereal document, floating alone in space - this is a real document with real effects on real people in the real world.  It is simple human courtesy to completely reject negative comment until it can be shown to meet all of the relevant standards for notability, verification, etc. Continually raising the original motivations for creating the BLP policy (whatever those motivations might have been) just muddies the waters.  This is a simple ethical principle.  Forget the legalities.  Behave ethically.  Everyone gains. Leeborkman 01:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know of any other encyclopedia that prints negative material about the people it covers, except in the gentlest and most roundabout way. Lou Sander 01:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Similarly... For living person claims - If it is unsourced and negative - controversial or non-controversial - then delete it.  That's policy too (I hope). Don't put it back until it has passed the standards of notability and verification (which should be easy if the statement is not controversial). Leeborkman 02:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asymmetry 

message: It seems to me that most of the issues that arise in biographies of living persons come from people who dislike the subject of the article wanting to include any negative information they can find into the article without a regard for sourcing.  To counteract this, maybe Wiki can create a checklist guideline an editor has to go through before adding an edit to a biography of a living person.  For example, things an editor should consider before an edit is:
*their opinion of the subject;
*is the edit negative;
*is it sourced;
*is it from a source that complies with WP:RS;
*is the edit being presented in a neutral tone
*is the edit relevant (meaning is it something that persons decades in the future will care about or is it simply the latest tabloid gossip).
I'm sure there are more guidelines that can be added but perhaps if editors thought more about what they are doing, there would be a decrease in the amount of libel that gets posted at Wiki.
Ramsquire 00:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: There is a reference to "false light" under "Use of categories," and this refers to a Wikipedia article, Invasion of Privacy. But from the footnote at the bottom of that article, which leads to a long essay posted on the website of the Florida bar, it is clear that "false light" is but a tiny part of the invasion of privacy issue. This is important because Florida is the Wikimedia Foundation's declared and preferred jurisdiction. There needs to be an entire section on the sort of statements -- even if they are true statements -- that might be actionable under Florida's laws. Moreover, the statute of limitations for libel in Florida is two years, but for invasion of privacy, due to a quirk where the legislature forgot to include it on a list under a new law, is four years. That's what an appeals court in Florida said about the statute of limitations for invasion of privacy. Maybe the legislature will fix this soon, but maybe not. --Daniel Brandt 216.60.71.219 04:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a reference to "public disclosure" under the Wikipedia article on invasion of privacy.  Even if somebody posts something true on Wikipedia, if it's in reference to a non-notable person, especially one who asks to be removed, it could be a serious problem. 69.140.173.15 18:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion of privacy issue is not mentioned adequately 

message: Does Wikipedia have a policy that specifically addresses the special privacy concerns of minors? For instance, a policy that states that articles on children under, say, 12 can be speedily deleted unless the subject is demonstrably voluntarily in the public eye (an actor, for instance), a missing person, etc.? --Charlene.fic 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good point, but it may need to be expanded. Imagine a scenario of a live 15 year old kidnapping/rape victim, who was in the media spotlight. Do we really want an article for that person with all the details? You would think that a young person like that deserves to at least get to adulthood in relative privacy. How would we handle that case? Crum375 19:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A related issue is listing the current schools of minors, either in their own biographies or in the articles about the schools. Between child actors and "l'il" rappers we have a number of articles about notable minors. Even if the inforamtion has already been published elsewhere and is verifable, I think it is too much information. Any thoughts? -Will Beback 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biographies of minors

message: "the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed that publishing embarrassing facts about a private citizen (even if the statements of fact are completely true) [...] constitutes an actionable invasion of the right of privacy [using the words] the publicizing of one’s private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion into one’s private activities, in such manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities." WAS 4.250 08:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific quotation above appears to come from a decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court. (The error was made by the authors of the article cited, not be WAS 4.250.) This is a complicated area of the law, and the rules differ widely from one country to another or even one state to another. My personal opinion, however, is that as a matter of Wikipedia policy, we have no reason to be coming anywhere close to the line in this area. Newyorkbrad 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal liability for true statements (privacy concerns)

message: Lol. Obvious violation. - Jack (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy doesn't call for them to be deleted.  WP:BLP is about removing poorly sourced or unsourced material.  If we have verifiable information from a reliable source stating that they were criminally convicted of rape (which is the criteria for :Category:Rapists) then it doesn't fall under [[WP:BLP]. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[James Lloyd (rapist)]] 

message: 2 editors named Ramdrake and JereKrischel dominate this article and have removed all encyclopedic content from this article and have used selective quotes to try to portray a qualified and objective academic as an incompetent racist. This type of libel goes against wikipedia's rules for biographies on living persons. Also, people researching Rushton do so to learn about the theories for which he is best known, not to read a list of selectively chosen quotes trashing the man.  I find this article very biased, one sided, boring, and libelous. Now that the article is semi-protected against new users like me, I encourage anyone concerned with the rules of living persons articles to revert back to my version of the article. 205.211.50.10 02:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the top of this page before posting here about a specific article. Thank you. Crum375 02:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, thanks 205.211.52.10 02:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed at the [[J. Phillipe Rushton]] aricle