Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 3

message: How do we get some of the experts here to take a look at an article that a) some have wondered if it's even notable and b) has some potential violations of the BLP policy? The article is Barbara Schwarz and I only found out about it because someone alerted us to this problem over at WP:WPBIO... plange 02:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHile the article itself is well sourced, I think the notability claim is fairly dubious. We don't have articles for every single Usenet personality, and three articles in the paper does not make an article. She never got heard by the Supreme Court, nor was she ever sanctioned with the vexatious litigant label, from my research. Calwatch 04:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was NOT really well sourced.  The main source was and still is a questionable article by the Salt Lake City Tribune.  The reliability of the SLCT article is debateable.  Then next most used "well" source is USENET postings by Barbara Schwarz.  Reliability has been a focus of the dispute.  Yes, notability is in dispute and has been a main focus of discussion.  At first the main claim to notability was poorly sourced claim of some kind of world or U.S. record of the most FOIA requests.  Then the claim of notability was Barbara's past position as a church leader.  I'm arguing that notability is regarding the violent deprogramming of Barbara Schwarz by Cyril Vosper and the involuntary psychiatric treatment/incarceration of Barbara Schwarz as a former church leader.  Barbara Schwarz claims to have references (scanned court documents, etc), however she is blocked and therefore no way for her to provide them directly to Wikipedia.  Apparently several people are in email contact with her and working on getting these scanned documents uploaded to Wikipedia.  Also those docs are in German, so they're going to have to be translated first but I don't think that will be any big obstacle with things such as Google babelfish (a free translation tool). --HResearcher 13:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Contrary to what you said, I just looked at the article and it has a number of distinct notes.  Those are each sources as well. Wjhonson 15:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP alert 

message: Hi.
A weird question, and possibly not completely related to this particular topic, but nevertheless prompted by it: You say that any sort of "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" "negative" (or ANY "speculative" unsourced articles regardless of topic (!)) articles about living people with no NPOV version must be deleted immediately by an administrator. The question is: what if I wrote such an article, it gets deleted (and protected), then I remake it under a slightly different title to defeat the protection, only this time citing reliable, verifiable sources, and it's from a neutral point of view (instead of just negative-only "bash 'em" comments)? What would you do? 70.101.145.181 08:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection is used much more rarely than deletion, only in cases where the article keeps being recreated as vandalism or with identical content as deleted. But if an appropriately sourced article can be written about the subject, it should be written, and I'd support a petition to move it to the appropriate title. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the answer. 70.101.145.181 20:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it OK? 

message: Guys, look, the alternative is having this: "His brother Steve Watson [2] is also a conspiracy theorist.". Is that really where we want to be? What is the point of this policy? --Striver 11:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: Why isn't there a section on a policy for any kind of portrait (photo, or other image or picture such as a drawing) of the biographed person?--AlainV 18:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been difficult to obtain properly released photos of many biographied persons.  Certainly it is better to forgo the picture than to use one that is copyvio.  But I would be in favor of adding a neutral comment to the effect that "pictures are nice, where possible".  However, that might not really be specific to WP:LIVING, but just a general point in "Perfect article" guidelines. An article on a bridge, building, or river is also enhanced by a picture of it, for example; living persons aren't special in this regard. LotLE×talk 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portrait of the biographed

message: What was the reason/purpose for this change? rootology (T) 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that some people consider that the longstanding consensus over notability does not mean we can even mention the word notability in policy.  In this case it is a fundamental misunderstanding, since the point is about how individual facts relate to the notability of the subject (i.e. are they known for that thing or not). Just zis Guy you know? 15:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ansell's change to policy--notability? 

message: I notice that this article was originally created on 12/17/2005, promoted to a guideline on 1/27/2006, and promoted to a policy on 7/18/2006.  Where can I review the discussions that led to consensus of elevating this proposal to a guideline and then a policy? - O^O 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The archives would be a good place to start. -Will Beback 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Will, I had already read what is in the archives, but thanks for pointing me to them again.  Since the talk pages of this article were primarily being read and edited by people interested in this article, I don't understand how they could serve to establish a general consensus for wikipedia as a whole.  Wasn't there any discussion outside of the talk pages of this article? - O^O 05:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Jimbo wanted it to be a policy. You can research all you want but that's the bottom line. I'm not aware that he had any direct connection to the content of the policy, though. I began it based on the comment of a very angry subject of an article, Slimvirgin created most of the early content, and any number of others have since made it even better (although it could use a bit of a trimming). WAS 4.250 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any links (in wikipedia or the mail archives) you could point out? Thanks - O^O 05:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bad news is I can't do any better than to direct you to the archives at  and . The good news is that what you find out on the way to finding what you are looking for will be more rewarding than what you are looking for. Going on vague memory, I seem to recall something like a month before it became policy Jimbo asked on the mail why isn't it a policy and what would it take to get there and then there was some discussion about a few tweaks in the content removing stuff that made sense as guideline but not as policy. If you want to see the process in action live just follow the current "paid to edit" mail and Wikipedia_talk:Conflicts_of_interest which forms a sorta-kinda bookend with this policy in that this policy is about us not screwing them over and the conflicts of interest proposal is about them not screwing us over. So to speak. WAS 4.250 08:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To narrow the scope a bit, the discussion on wikien-l began in December 2005. -Will Beback 09:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of consensus process 

message: As a "notable" individual myself, I often find myself meeting other notable individuals in various venues -- in a green room while we're waiting for an interview, in a a "speaker's lounge" at a convention, bumping into other authors at a major booksigning event, etc.  When I chat with them, the subject of Wikipedia often comes up, since it's one of my favorite hobbies.  Sometimes the people that I talk to complain about an inaccuracy in their bio, in which case I of course volunteer to fix/remove it (especially if it's unsourced negative info).  I also routinely volunteer to expand simple biographical details to improve the article, such as high school attended, parents' occupations, place of birth, etc.  In those cases, should I list the subject in the "Sources" section, such as, "Some information provided by subject, and transcribed by <name>"?  Or, in those cases where the subject is himself or herself web-savvy enough to change their own bio (and yes, I make sure to tell them about WP:AUTO), should they list themselves in the "Sources" section?  Has there been any discussion about the best way to handle these cases? --Elonka 17:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you talk to the subject, the information isn't verifiable by the rest of us. That's not a valid source for Wikipedia. I know we make some exceptions for non-controversial self-edits, but adding another person into the chain is a very bad idea. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When the subject has a web site of their own, I have at times encouraged them to write the fact they want to add to their biography to a public page there. That makes it verifiable. (For an example, see Talk:Humphry_Knipe.) On the other hand, removing incorrect and uncited information is much easier. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about where in WP:AUTO it states that subjects are encouraged to correct mistaken information about themselves?  Wouldn't it be better for them to change something, and have their name added to the "Sources" section, rather than telling them to just change it and not identify themselves? --Elonka 23:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The key is verifyability. Unverified claims can be deleted by anyone. Verified (adequately sourced) NPOV claims should not be deleted without a very good reason. The subject may lie to remove data they don't want there. We don't take their word on something unless their word is more believable than the source used in the article. Actresses often fudge their birthdate. If an actress awears she is younger than the New York Times says she is, we should not take her word for it. Good judgement is important. Other people can be brought in to weigh their judgements. Extreme content can be removed while decisions are pondered. WAS 4.250 01:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The WP:AUTO guideline states that biography subjects "should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on."  My recommendation is, if they do that, we should also ask them to add themselves to the "Sources" section of an article, or perhaps figure out some way of marking the information as "self-supplied." --Elonka 16:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Verbal and personal email communications are absolutely unacceptable as a source.  The person themselves is unacceptable, unless their statements have been previously published in some fashion.  Anything less violates verifiability. Wjhonson 18:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also a living person may not state who their parents were, who they are married to, who they know, who they work for, or anything else about any other person except themselves.  All other people are "third parties". Wjhonson 19:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrong. If an unbiased trustworthy source says a noteable person identied their relatives as so and so the main question is how relevent it is. WAS 4.250 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant.  I said the person themselves can not be the source for that information.  I said nothing about a third-party source. Only about a first-party source i.e. the subject of the article. Wjhonson 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if we agree or disagree. Wikipedia allows the use of what the subject of an article says about other people so long as it otherwise meets verifyablity, NPOV and no original research. If you disagree, please read primary source and secondary source, as these are the revelant terms, not first-person, second-person or third-party or the like. WAS 4.250 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What that intended to cover is now better covered by the added "* It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies." so I removed it. The point is that you don't get a free ride to bad mouth someone else just because it is an article about you. John smith has no especial competance to claim "Billy joe is a pedaophile" on the John Smith article, but John Smith is presumed to be an expert about John Smith - but he might lie so the stuff about not contentious and not self serving is needed. WAS 4.250 21:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No. Not verifyable. Verifyable means others can verify it as a source. A book in 100 libraries is verifyable, as the libraies verify authenticity and the book is available to numerous people. E-mail is easy to fake. The reason for wikipedia prefering secondary sources is that the secondary source (New York Times for example) does the authenticity verifying for us. WAS 4.250 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above section cited by Wjhonson would seem to imply that my example is OK, since the source is a "Newsletter" which must be equivalent to a press release sent via. e-mail. Eh? -MrFizyx 21:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: BLP does not trump the Verifiability policy, and anything in it that seems to needs to be written to be more clear. WAS 4.250 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I concur, just playing devil's advocate. -MrFizyx 21:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing the subject as a source

message: What if the source cited for some fairly private information is an email sent to the subjects fans?  This is not entirely hypothetical , though in this case I suspect another source could be found. -MrFizyx 17:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Not verifyable. Verifyable means others can verify it as a source. A book in 100 libraries is verifyable, as the libraies verify authenticity and the book is available to numerous people. E-mail is easy to fake. The reason for wikipedia prefering secondary sources is that the secondary source (New York Times for example) does the authenticity verifying for us. WAS 4.250 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above section cited by Wjhonson would seem to imply that my example is OK, since the source is a "Newsletter" which must be equivalent to a press release sent via. e-mail. Eh? -MrFizyx 21:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: BLP does not trump the Verifiability policy, and anything in it that seems to needs to be written to be more clear. WAS 4.250 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I concur, just playing devil's advocate. -MrFizyx 21:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fanmail as a source? 

message: I find it curious the new caveat about living persons refers to "libellous" statements. The standard spelling of "libelous" has one 'l' not two. Curious how someone who seeks to impose a common standard uses the uncommon spelling. While it's not incorrect to spell it "libellous," that's by far the minority spelling, per OED and numerous other standard dictionaries. --207.69.139.10 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brits like two l's, Merkins like just one.  I suppose an argument could be made that since WP servers are hosted in Florida, and that's the mostly likely jurisdiction, American spelling might govern. LotLE×talk 08:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't OED done by Brits? Lou Sander 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps they were infiltrated.  Anyway, feel free to fix the spelling. LotLE×talk 17:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The correct spelling is one "L", since the accent is on the first syllable, not the final one.  I tried fixing it, but  reverted me.  I've started another thread on it at Template_talk:Blp#Libelous / Libellous, so hopefully we can prove consensus for "libelous". --Elonka 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libelous vs. libellous 

message: I have raised this here before, but there continue to be daily misinterpretations of WP:BLP throughout the articles related to Hugo Chávez.  I am hoping that regulars here will review this situation, and make comments, or discuss whether the wording on BLP can be improved to help avoid this abusive misinterpretation of BLP.  Sandy 20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement in wording of BLP 

message: This policy currently states "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked."(as of 21:15, 5 June 2006) My suggestion is that this point be amended to include original research on talk pages.  The result would be something like this: "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material and original research about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked." (emphasis added to indicate proposed amendment.) --HResearcher 11:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it sounds like instruction creep (and is already banned anyway per WP:OR) the specific inclusion of OR, and by extension novel syntheses, in this rule does have some merit, since novel syntheses are indeed a frequent source of neutrality disputes in respect of living individuals.  So I cautiously support this.  Just zis Guy you know? 15:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious. Is is OR to say stuff like "Foo unprofessionally said (well-sourced quote not including the word unprofessional)," or "Foo notoriously said (well-sourced quote not mentioning notorious)", etc. I see a lot of that, and I don't know what to call the editorializing about "unprofessional" and "notorious." Lou Sander 13:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using adjectives is an example of POV to me.  It could be considered OR as well.  I believe it would be best to take those out  or avoid them unless it is a direct (and cited, of course) quote.  MrMurph101 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with MrMurph101, since "unprofessionally" and "notoriously" are uncited they can just be removed and such removals are exempt from 3RR! :D --HResearcher 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If he said something, and that statement became notorious (e.g. series of tubes) then we can use the word notorious.  The word unprofessional should be used with much more caution; for example: "he said foo and this was described by named authority as unprofessional", where the named authority is accepted as an expert on whether or not this woudl constitute unprofessional.  If a doctor made a claim and the AMA denounced the claim as unprofessional, for example. Guy 11:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not intended as instruction creep, but only to make the policy more clear about original research. --HResearcher 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I support it. And I'm wondering who said that series of tubes has become notorious? Lou Sander 13:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: When a bio article contains a source, is it also necessary to cite that source in other articles where the subject is mentioned with a wikilink back to the bio, or is it acceptable to rely on the reader to follow the link back to the bio? I am having issues with Jeff Gannon being called a prostitute in various articles. An admin is pushing back, and I am not sure of this particular requirement. (I am also not fully comfortable with the sources in the Jeff Gannon article "proving" that he is a prostitute, but that is another issue). I would appreciate someone with more experience with BLP to take a look at Jeff Gannon, and the articles that link to it. Crockspot 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you remember? Evidence? I have asked an AMA advocate to look into my problems with the Gannon article, and while he is still in the initial investigative stage, he has already stated that he can find no solid evidence in all the sources listed of Gannon actually being a prostitute. What you "remember" happens to be unverifiable, and your comments illustrate the heart of this problem. You just violated BLP by posting unsourced negative info about illegalities committed, when there is zero evidence that any illegalities were committed. Should I remove your comments? But it is irrelevant to my question, which is, is it necessary to cite sources for negative info on a living person wherever it appears, or is it sufficient to rely on the reader to follow a wikilink back to another article to find those sources. An additional problem is, if sources in the main article are found not to support the claim, is there a mechanism for fanning out and removing all the negative info that points back to these sources? I guess the remover of the sources should check "what links here", and do the legwork themself. Crockspot 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I may agree with the specific case, the problem is that there's no bright line for deciding such things. In absense of such, I suggest letting the world wide web and various credit reporting agencies and skip tracing firms and clipping services and tabloids and political dirt-finding services be the repository of such stuff, while we let Wikipedia go back to its main job of becoming the world's best encyclopedia, repository of information on physics and history and culture and geography and whatever, WITHOUT becoming the central Big Brother repository on available "neutral" biographical information per se on everybody living who ever did anything of note, which is to say, just about everybody. We can live without that part of Wikipedia. Time enough for bio when you're dead. And few people care about biographical info which happens to show up in other contexts and stujects, contextually. We can allow bios of living people who want to be bio'd, and pull the plug on the rest NOW and sidestep that entire nightmare. The price is a tiny gap in knowledge, which in any case is merely the penumbra of a gap which is necessary anyway, due to libel law. The payoff for making this part of Wikipedia sacrosanct is a HUGE payoff in public relations--- a really monstrous one, because the bad bio thing and the bad info problem are the two main things most people know about Wikipedia. And yes, changing this would make a moral statement; it would be a clear attempt to take and maintain the high ground. Shocking, eh? But such a statement and policy would do nothing but good for Wikipedia. SBHarris 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indirect sourcing of negative info? 

message: David Gerard said "Sensitivity is not part of the original intent of the policy". That is in fact the exact opposite of the truth. When I created the first edit of the proposal that became the guideline that became the policy, its entire content was to be sentitive on articles about living people with the context of that being a very (and still) angry object of a bio that objected to what he perceived as an invasion of his privacy as a nonnoteable (legally speaking according to Florida privacy laws he said) private person and he did not want to be converted into a public person with fewer legal rights concerning his privacy. The meaning of "sensitivity" is not omit negative information but instead involves enhanced awareness such as the enhanced awareness you have in the more sensitive parts of your body. The use of the word "sensitivity" is a dircet quote from the man asking for a little as he was a living person.  WAS 4.250 23:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On sensitivity

message: I seem to remember seeing somewhere a page for alerts about possible violations of this policy. Am I imagining this, or does such a page exist, and if so, where? 
For what it's worth, my specific concern is the continuous insertion of critical material from poor sources (newspaper editorials and a lobby group, in particular) into the Rashid Khalidi article, along with highly-POV commentary by the person inserting them. Palmiro | Talk 20:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An alert page would come in handy right about now. I have the same problem with the Jeff Gannon article, and related links to it. If there is such a page already, it should be more easily locatable. Crockspot 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a page would also be handy for problems with the Ann Coulter article, which IMHO is edited maliciously every day. Lou Sander 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could create Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/BLP... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might work. Now, we get some requests brought to this talk page or AN/I. Another page would be better if enough admins monitor it. Office messages might go on the page too. We could give it a try and abandon if not used. FloNight 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I will attempt to set up such noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I will appreciate some help at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. A good explanation on what is OK to report, process,  etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred Phelps is a glaring problem, currently under FARC, if you want a guinea pig article to start with.  I'm not interested in nominating, since I feel that would create a conflict with my work at WP:FAR.   Sandy 02:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article needs to be deleted stubified and start from scratch. Multiple violations of WP:BLP, most material from one source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  But.  Who does that?  How are BLP problems this serious dealt with?  I only encountered this article because it's on FARC, and the last time I got involved in an article I was reviewing on FARC, the results were not pleasant.  FARC reviewers shouldn't do it, there doesn't seem to be a principle editor, so who cleans it out?  Or, should the BLP process be to just nominate it for AfD?  (I hope you noticed that, although there are multiple refs, the number of refs is misleading, since they almost all lead to the same book.) So, how will articles like this be dealt with in the new review board? Sandy 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I started by encouraging editors of that article to read this policy and act on it by removing unsourced negative material from the article. I will check in a few days, and if it was not done, I will roll my sleeves and do it myself, not a thing that I look forward to... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alerts? 

message: At the head of the new anti-Semitism article is an image ... Nowhere in the article is there text saying who's claiming that the image is anti-Semitic (only linked references to fairly respectable blogs connected to news sources). In this light it is arguable that Wikipedia itself is saying that the image is anti-Semitic (particularly given the image's file name :Image:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg). Does Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy apply in this type of case? Thanks. (→Netscott) 11:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely you jest. The image depicts unnamed persons, wearing yarmulkes, with fangs, gloating over a burning planet. If that's not anti-Semitic then the picture of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban is a glamour pose. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not arguing one way or the other actually. What I'd like clarification on is whether or not a case such as this would fall under WP:BLP or not? Obviously there are POVs that say the image is merely an expression of Anti-Zionism and not Anti-Semitism while there are clearly POVs that it is sooner Anti-Semitism masquerading as Anti-Zionism (hence it's usage on the New anti-Semitism article). (→Netscott) 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What this has to do with BLP? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [The artist] is a living person. With histhe image he created at the top of the new anti-Semitism article and with no additional text specifying who is saying that his image is an example of  new anti-Semitism Wikipedia is essentially saying so. There are sources saying that his image is anti-Semitic but they are provided in reference links. Shouldn't those (preferably reliable sources) who are saying his work is anti-Semitic be actually specified in the article and not merely linked to? Such a question would seem to fall under this policy no? (→Netscott) 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Forgive my asking Jayjg but how does including what the source of the very image's view on it (in the article) constitue my saying that the image was anti-Semitic? Even the image's file name had to be changed. (→Netscott) 00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? The article doesn't say it's anti-Semitic; you're the one who is insisting it must be labelled that way. Now that you've gotten your way, you're trying to have it deleted for that reason. This is the third excuse you've used to try to get it deleted. Please stop this disruption. Oh, and how many places are you going to post this? Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only person linking the artist's name to anti-Semitism is Netscott with this trolling masquerading as innocent questions. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've tried to have this talk concentrate on the noticeboard by attempting to move it where it belongs (as specified in the notice at the top of this page) but I've now been reverted rather illogically by User:SlimVirgin twice. BLP concerns are very valid here with the artist's name now being associated with an image of his work as the lead image on new anti-Semitism as who's referring to it as corresponding to the topic of the article does not figure into the text of the article (merely a couple of reference to newsource blogs). (→Netscott) 01:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So help me out here. Is it that you don't want the image displayed at all, or you don't want it displayed with the artist's name, or you want it displayed only with the artist's name, or what? Tom Harrison Talk 01:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Good question.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That info is available in the image's page. As for your question "who is saying the image is anti-semitic",  would rather ask, who does not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image caption does not say it is anti-Semitic, but that it contains anti-Semitic motifs (as well as others). The image caption also does not include the artist's name. The only reason the image page includes the artist's name is that Netscott was trying to have it deleted because it did not say who the copyright holder is, and so I had to add it. This situation has been drummed up by Netscott 100 per cent out of nothing in order to cause a problem. I am more than happy to remove the artist's name from the image page, and then his name will not be linked to the issue at all (but you can be sure that if I do that, Netscott will revert me, fearful of losing his playground). SlimVirgin (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know as much as I should about this, but isn't the photographer the copyright-holder? Tom Harrison Talk 02:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, the photographer holds the copyright on the photograph, and has freely licensed it, and the creator of the poster holds the copyright on the poster, for which we claim fair use. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Jossi, "no original research" is very clear about that, "Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories." Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox about what this image is an example of. (→Netscott) 02:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do the 6 links in the footnote on the caption say? Gimmetrow 02:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gimmetrow, please read this section of WP:BLP where it says, "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.". Merely providing links to references falls well afoul of abiding by a "writing style" as specified in that section. (→Netscott) 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscott, I thought you said you withdrawing from further trolling about this. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Netscott, you need to clearly state what you propose as a caption if you want it changed, probably on the article talk page where I was unable to find any relevant discussion. I'm not going to chase this discussion around on multiple pages. Gimmetrow 02:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question concerning an image

message: A while back the privacy of Jimmy Wales' daughter was violated on wikipedia. Be aware of a certain sensitivity some might have on making light of privacy needs of nonnotable people. Deleting addresses, phone numbers, birthdays, social security numbers, auto license information, etc might seem "paranoid" but it is not.   WAS 4.250 13:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. But she's not notable herself. If someone is notable enough to rate an article and have their birthdate verifiable with the reason for their notability, there's no sane reason to exclude it or assume it should be excluded by default - David Gerard 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone is notable enough to rate an article in Britannica then yes, everything you said is true. The problem is the semi-noteable or just barely noteable who get an article here but in no other encyclopedia (that isn't a mirror of this one). We have cases of porn stars bios with both their real name and their real birth day (source: legal documents) removed for privacy reasons by the highest Wikipedia authorities (who will indef ban you if you try to put them back). I don't think you should have to be a porn star to be deserve privacy for nonnoteable details of your life if you are barely nateable. WAS 4.250 15:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is quite a significant difference.  Porn stars, and other like people in the Witness Protection program, change their names in order to protect their families from being scandalized or targeted for recrimination.  That is not the case with say an academic, or a sports figure or a politician.  If an author's exact birthdate is in a widely available source like "Gale's Authors Online" there is no reason why we should not post that birthdate with a citation.  If that person then has a phone directory listing, they are already publishing, to the world, where they live.  Not that I'd post it, but they already did. Wjhonson 15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Privacy (copied from David's talk page)

message: Is there such a thing? I would be willing to become involved with such a task force. Such a group, along with an alert/request page, could really clamp down on the problems. As far as I can tell, there is no such group. This issue is too important to WP's legal well-being to not have a group that specifically deals with these problems directly. Crockspot 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, we started that yesterday. I will appreciate help is formalizing a process for review, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I started the discussion page there. I'm not an admin, but I would be happy to help in any way that is appropriate. Crockspot 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a test case, I'm going to post a BLP conflict that is incapable of being mediated due to wikibreaks and people taking advantage of their right to disappear.  I hope it works well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Badlydrawnjeff, that sounds a bit like disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Wouldn't discussing the matter make more sense? (→Netscott) 17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been there, done that.  I don't think it's a disruption, or making a point - it's trying to get a wide range of discussion since the issue isn't resolved and there's no mediation available.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well whatever it is don't be too surprised if people are erring on the side of caution while citing this policy and undoing whatever you're proposing. (→Netscott) 17:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my hope is that this noticeboard can help alleviate whatever flaws the actual policy has.  It's why we attempted mediation (and it took 6 weeks to get rolling, which is why it was unsuccessful), and why I'm taking it here - a review is certainly in order, and would certainly answer a lot of questions about its application in this example. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have created a new page at Wikipedia:Libel-Protection_Unit. Enjoy, and lets start the ground floor on this. Electrawn 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP task force? 

message: To whom do I turn for help on a page that contains possibly libelous material?  Unverified personal accounts being taken as fact, factual events being misconstrued, etc.  I've tried to edit the material out, but the page maker keeps putting it back.  Thanks.Steviegee 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The process is just being set up now (see section above). Can you link the article here, and I will at least take a looksee. Crockspot 16:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevermind, I figured it out - Steven Greenberg (rabbi). I presume from your username that you are the subject of the article? The entire section was unsourced, with the exception of one source, from which a conclusion must be drawn to accept the statement in the article. (Which qualifies as Original Research). Therefore, I nuked the entire section. Crockspot 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a different Steve, see . — CharlotteWebb 18:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: It'd be good to provide a link to the noticeboard via the BLP template so that editors who are in doubt or having difficulty with other editors can have a place to go. I invite other editors to join the discussion about this idea. Thanks. (→Netscott) 22:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Netscott. My comments were removed "per blp" from a talk page when they were merely part of a debate raging on a page. discussionBakaman Bakatalk 23:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding a link to the [[WP:BLP/N|noticeboard]] on {{[[Template:blp|blp]]}}?

message: On bios of scientists, some editors count number of citations toward assessing "Notability".  Using citations on (say} Google scholar as a count is subject to gross artefacts.
E.g.,  unless both papers are actually posted as a journal article on the net (Science only does this back too about 1996),  most cross-cites do not get picked up.   A better count is derived by using "related articles" on http://pubmed.gov as a proxy or using citation index. E.g. Pubmed cites 96 articles related to a 1974 paper in Science, showing the first molecular electronic device.  But,  only a handful show up on a "Google Scholar" search.
An illustrative counter-example is the journal Stroke,  where, unlike Science, full text articles back to the 1970's have been posted.  With such articles,  the number of citations showing on-line reasonably corresponds to "related articles" on Pubmed.gov.
E.g., for this this 1970's paper in Stroke, Google Scholar lists 100 citing articles. while Pubmed lists 89 associated articles. Not too far off,  considering all the variables.Pproctor 00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to Count Real Citation Numbers

message: At Talk:List of famous prostitutes and courtesans#Alleged male prostitutes, User:Crockspot and I are having a disagreement about the threshold of reliability required by WP:BLP. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that
1. Regardless of the caliber of a source, there must be multiple independent sources.
2. Those sources must not have any axe to grind.
And perhaps he is claiming something even more restrictive than that, which I'm not quite picking up.
I find the second requirement a bit troubling, because it is hard to say who does and does not have an axe to grind. In this case, the two sources I provided, which were rejected as inadequate, were:
# An opinion piece, published in The Guardian in the UK, which states as fact that the individual in question was a prostitute. As most of you know, the UK has pretty much the world's toughest libel laws, so that if the individual had any intention of challenging this, then that was the ideal venue to do so
# A piece (originally from The Nation, but reprinted on CBS's website) that says that the individual "apparently was seeking customers as a gay, military-oriented prostitute."
Since then another editor has found two articles from the Washington Post asserting, respectively, that the individual's "naked pictures have appeared on a number of gay escort sites" and that he "was offering his escort services for $200 an hour, or $1,200 a weekend". 
So, if these don't add up to enough, I'm a bit bewildered. Is Crockspot correctly interpreting this rule? If so, I believe we have an enormous amount of material about living people that does not meet this level of citation, probably the bulk of it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings Jmabel, I would recommend you post on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as well. (→Netscott) 00:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threshold of reliability 

message: Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles. 
Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.
Concerned editors are invitedto join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. Some of you are being personally invited via individual talk pages, please do not interpret not receiving one as an intentional exclusion! I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Working Group Creation: [[Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit]]

message: I do some work for one of the Washington Post companies. They required me to take a short interactive course on avoiding behavior that could lead to  sexual harrassment claims. There was some online study material that included a number of examples, and a quiz before and after to measure how much I knew and had learned. Now that I've taken the course, the Post and I are both a bit better off. 
It occurs to me that we might benefit from such a little course about BLP policies. It wouldn't have to be interactive, and if it included a quiz, editors could score it themselves. 
Such a thing could be helpful to good faith editors who want to be sure their BLP work is in keeping with policy. Editors who seem not to follow policy could gently be advised to take the course. Nobody would need to know who took the course, did the quiz, or even looked at any of it. 
If there's interest in the idea, I'd be happy to come up with a draft. Look HERE for a simple example. Lou Sander 20:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, Barriers to entry. Perhaps an example filled essay/style guide? Or  maybe a Scientific management process specific to BLP. Electrawn 23:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A roadmap, not a barrier. Something between a one-paragraph nutshell and a seven-page policy that has links throughout and 16 "See also's" at the end. Lou Sander 23:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Essay or tutorial then. Like Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy or Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial. I'd like to establish a process/working group as well at WP:LPU, and have invited you personally to particpate. Electrawn 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Little Study Guide