Template talk:BLP/Archive 2

message: Please do not archive this heading, at least for some time. -- Fyslee 21:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note that [[WP:BLP]] is now policy.

message: I really don't see the benefit of adding the image. It seems rather unnecessary and unprofessional, and also could be taken to presume things about the subject - that the subject is an adult, that the subject can stand up, etc. --Philosophus T 22:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the symbol for a human being, the one that was sent into space. I think it emphasized the point of the tag rather nicely, so I'd like to put it back. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A fully clothed mind?  SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's the NASA image of human beings that was sent into space. It's known universally and therefore I felt it was appropriate. The message of the tag is "When you write an article about a living person, remember you're dealing with a human being." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was on Pioneer 10 and 11. See Pioneer Plaque. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. But it was about what humans look like, directed toward another type of life form, not about biographies and living people. The image just doesn't seem related to the tag, and looks bizarre. The whole plaque really wasn't designed for normal human use, with the hyperfine structure based units and so on. The faces idea might be more appropriate if one wants to emphasize that one is dealing with an article about a real person with feelings. --Philosophus T 00:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that there are too many templates, but this is an important one that editors and subjects of bios have to see, so it needs to stand out. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was actually in the process of attempting to find an image when SlimVirgin beat me to it. I thought it was great. Since so many are objecting, how about another image that somehow fits the message, something related to kindness and the Golden Rule? An image is an important eye-catcher. Without it the text box just gets drowned among all the other text on a page. Is there somewhere here at Wikipedia where one can check out all the images that are already approved for use here? -- Fyslee 17:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can go here, Fyslee, and do a search. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fyslee, I liked the idea you mentioned elsewhere of a handshake, so I added one. What do you think? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love it! That's precisely the idea we need to convey, and the image is a nice eye catcher. I have tried to make it longer again, so it is the same length as the other template. Now the image is slightly off-center (vertically). I don't know how to fix that. There should be some standard formatting requirements for templates. -- Fyslee 09:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the image should be made smaller, to the same size as the other image (in the other template). -- Fyslee 09:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem, at list in my browser (XP6) the image and text aren't stable, the text being partially covered by the image. Updating the page fixes it, but that shouldn't be necessary. I don't know enough about HTML to fix that. -- Fyslee 17:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My browser has the same problem, the picture obscures the text until I refresh the page.  It does this every time, even after I clear the cache.  BTW, I really liked the Pioneer people-pic - very eye-catching and relevant to the issue (there are living people here!) :_ Dreadlocke 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked it too, but for some reason others didn't, so Fyslee thought of the handshake instead. I think it shouldn't be so long and thin, because that causes it to merge in with the other tags, and it needs to stand out, so I adjusted it so that the first line ends with "biographies of living persons." Fyslee and Dreadlocke, do you still see the image overlap thing with it at this size? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly, it was still overlapping, but I adjusted it a bit according to the html code that was in the Pioneer edit, which had good spacing.  It looks ok from my browser now.  Dreadlocke 02:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I didn't know how to fix it myself or I would have.  It looks great in my browser now, too.--WilliamThweatt 03:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool!  Glad I could help! Dreadlocke 05:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Dreadlocke, it looks much better now. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Michael, what didn't you like about the Pioneer image? Quite a few people said they preferred it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And other people objected to it, pointing out a variety of implications that detract from the point this template tries to make. I realize people want to slap a picture on every little template for some reason, but the choices are often poorly suited to illustrate the message. The image is a symbol of human form, perhaps, but that's not really what the template is getting at. The salient issue is that these people are living, which is relegated to the background or not apparent at all from the pictures chosen so far (a drawing, alive?). A quick way to illustrate the concept isn't necessarily easy, but something like a newborn baby would come a lot closer to getting the point across, I think. Those who see many of our complaints from affected parties might also sympathize with the implication that there's a lot of unwarranted wailing involved. --Michael Snow 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this for a representation of living: God creating Adam.  SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or two young girls?  SlimVirgin (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The Sistine fresco certainly fits with the point, although it requires a particular cultural understanding to recognize. I'd guess some people would be disturbed by the religious aspect of the image, just as others didn't like the frank nudity of the Pioneer plaque. Rather than offend people unnecessarily, I'd go with the two girls. Youthfulness is a decent way to communicate being alive, so that's probably the best choice of those I've seen so far. --Michael Snow 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, that Pioneer image.  That would have been fine.  Eliminating the image is also fine, I don't really see the need for one.  I had no idea there had been a controversy, I only discovered it by visiting this page to gripe about the handshake picture. Phr (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: What matters is what the policy is. Why do we need that link to Jimbo's email in the Template? It does not make the policy any more forceful. It is policy. Period. -- 67.116.253.22 09:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who cares what Jimbo says? 

message: The reason I prefer  to  is that the former seems more inviting and accessible to non-Wikipedians. Saying that you should edit is different from saying that an editor should edit. Consider the use case of people unfamiliar with wikis who come upon a libellous article about themselves. They may take "editor" to mean a traditional managing editor. Going into technicalities about things such as the WP:3RR seems distracting for the same reason. The template prominently links to the policy, it doesn't need to summarize it at length. Haukur 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is turning into the template from hell. We can't agree on wording, color, size, shape, or image. :-) I do agree with the above, though. I find the recent one too aggressive. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we agree it's an important template :) And I agree with you for a change - feels like we've been at odds too often lately. Haukur 21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More wording issues 

message: What should one make of anonymous editor 67.121.115.67 dropping this template on what appear to be exclusively articles listed in :Category:anti-Semitic people? IP 75.23.154.140 has also done so, but added it onto other controversial figures' talk pages, as well.  --LeflymanTalk 08:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked at the contributions, but if they're BLPs, it's okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive templating? 

message: I occurs to me that it might do us well to distinguish between a regular biography and one where the story deals with ongoing litigation (where the Foundation is not a party, since I assume that WP:OFFICE takes over then). -- 67.119.193.169 00:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of distinction were you thinking of? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An extra template or a specialization of this one that highlights the fact that an active legal case (or likely appeals) are still in play and that additional caution is advisable. Might as well include both civil and criminal. No need for immune people like U.S. Presidents, but if the article is going to, say, report on such active legal cases, then we can keep an eye of such even more closely. -- 67.121.114.82 08:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I see the need for that. We should be cautious when writing BLPs regardless of any legal cases that are going on. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A further refinement? 

message: Should the template warn only against poorly-sourced negative material, or should it be broader in connotation? Is positive information to be accepted more leniently? That seems like bad policy to me. --Eyrian 00:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Positive material wouldn't be defamatory. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I understand the legal necessity for preventing false, negative information. However, It was merely an idea that the template would warn against all unsourced information. --Eyrian 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We have this situation now where biographies of controversial people (e.g. major politicians) are turning into hagiographies.  The necessity of getting rid of unsourced negative stuff is obvious; but it's extremely difficult to also get rid of unsourced positive stuff and have anything left.  The result is the NPOV of these articles is getting clobbered.  Daniel Brandt is (or was; I haven't looked at it lately) an extremely closely sourced bio that I like to cite as an example, but the amount of work it took to do it must have been insane.  I don't have any answer to this tension between BLP and NPOV.  And now we've got this arbcom decision coming (Hunger Project) that currently proposes to extend the BLP principles to businesses as well as people.  So I guess Wikipedia will turn out to be an advertising service after all.  Wikipedia is doomed, film at 11. Phr (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative Material 

message: In addition to biographical articles, should lists of people use this template? See Lists (stand-alone lists) - Lists of people. Obviously lists of dead people don't count. What about lists where the criteria is complimentary or neutral (lists of Olympic gold medal winners, or Prime Ministers, for example)? Colin°Talk 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all lists, regardless of their nature, with a significant number (say, more than 20-30%) of living people included should have the template in the talk page. It may only serve as a reminder, though. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of people

message: *I've added the template (noinclude) to :Category:WikiProject Biography to aid with navigation for editors who are interested in Biography. I hope this isn't controversial and that we can agree that WikiProject Biography should be the central meeting point for such issues, but if you don't agree please revert and/or discuss.
*I've also added a note that  is generally the preferred template, because it displays the same message as  and then some. The note might need a little copyediting.
--kingboyk 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPBiography 

message: Starting a new thread as I can't find where this was last discussed.
As you've probably noticed, I've been tagging living persons biographies with , which includes the warning message from this template. Until I added a FAQ about it, I was getting at least one message a day from concerned editors who thought that the message meant there was something wrong with their article. Might the warning be reworded, to make it clear that it's a statement of general policy and not necessarily indicative of problems in the article to which the notice is attached? --kingboyk 13:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording, revisited 

message: Since the text is now transcluded into well over 100,000 talk pages, and I can't see any reason why non-admins should need to edit it, should it be protected or at least semi-protected? Any changes ought to be discussed here first, and there are plenty of admins about who can update the text (myself included). Note that I propose protecting only  and not  (which is just formatting, and mostly superceded by ). --kingboyk 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea -- we don't need vandals playing their goofy games on that page plange 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good idea. There's been too much chopping and changing. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Protection is not warranted at this time. The page has had some 45 edits this month, none of them vandalism. Any vandalism would be quickly reverted and only affect people browsing talk pages (i.e. mostly editors rather than innocent passerby). Haukur 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that changes to that template will slow down WP as it will queue up the changes in their thingamajig. Kinboyk can explain it better. It's now on 100K pages....plange 20:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The job queue. That's only the case if a link/transclusion/category is changed (the link tables have to be updated). Editing of simple text isn't really an issue in that regard. --kingboyk 20:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That seems like consensus to me. I'll protect it now. --kingboyk 22:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect {{tl|Blp/BLPtext}}? 

message: The current text of the template says unsourced materials must be removed immediately. Several times I included some materials which I knew from personal contact or some now unavailable source. Sometimes I also found it in reliable source, which is however surely temporary and unsuitable for citing. No information of this kind were negative, but without them the articles would be stubs at last.
I understand the policy of avoiding extensive use of unsourced materials, but I would be rather against demanding their immediate removal if they are not controversial - rather they should be marked with the "citation needed" note. Okino 15:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they mean unsourced negative content. --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 07:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Must Be Unsourced Materials Removed? 

message: The correct spelling is "Libelous", with one "L".  The rule is that the final consonant should be doubled, only if when pronounced, the accent is on the final syllable.  With "Libel", the accent is on the first syllable, so the final consonant should not be doubled.  This also makes it consistent with the spelling at Slander and libel, Webster's dictionary, and is the most common usage on Wikipedia .   There seems to be some indication that "libellous" is a valid UK spelling, but the single "L" version outnumbers it, 10 to 1. --Elonka 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any need to change a valid spelling, and this is an international site. What do other people think? --kingboyk 12:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka's logic is impeccable this edit suggestion should be instituted. (→Netscott) 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are valid. The MoS says spellings should be changed only when there's a reason to do so and I don't see that it makes any difference here. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's likely to be a group of edits made shortly and there's no reason to not follow Wikipedia's norm of a 10 to 1 ratio of one spelling over the other. (→Netscott) 22:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have since learned that "libellous" is the British version, and "libelous" is the American one. Since Wikipedia policy allows both spellings, and articles that are somehow British-related are allowed to use British spellings, those articles should be spared, while other articles can be changed to the more common spelling. -- Fyslee 10:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the most common spelling generally the American one? Seems that is like saying we cannot choose between A and B, but B is more popular, so we take that... HichamVanborm 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Libelous / Libellous

message: The current wording could do for a slight tweak:
Current wording: 
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy as it directly concerns one or more living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.
Tweaked wording:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy as content in it directly concerns one or more living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.
Frequently an article may not be directly about an individual but certainly have content about the individual (see Islamophobia). Thanks. (→Netscott) 11:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my 2 cents, but I think that "it directly concerns one or more living people" says the same as "as content in it directly concerns one or more living people" albeit more eloquently. My take is to leave it as is. As with the above, I'd welcome comments from other editors before deciding whether to change the text or not. (I've disabled  as this page is on my watchlist and I'll deal with it if there's consensus to change). --kingboyk 12:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a need to change it. They both say the same thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit protected

message: It would be good to add the noticeboard to the template to give editors a place to turn to in the event that problems arise. 
Like so:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy as content in it directly concerns one or more living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the biographies noticeboard.
(→Netscott) 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. Show me a couple of supporters and I'll add it. --kingboyk 18:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell you what, let's just be bold here, ok? (→Netscott) 18:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to show me the BOLD link, you think I got adminship without knowing about that page?! :) The problem is, this is a policy from on high, and I had no involvement with setting it up. I don't feel comfortable changing the wording based on whether I think it's an improvement or not. I'd prefer to see consensus and then I can blame you lot! :P (Side note, the job queue is currently over 500,000 so any changes won't take effect for several hours anyway. Updating the link tables for over 100,000 articles takes quite a long time). --kingboyk 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, well as an editor who previously worked on this template in an unbridled fashion you perhaps can understand why I take the stance that I do. (→Netscott) 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can edit the Blp template as much as you like, it's only the text that's locked. All I'm asking for is 2 other editors to support the change, that's not much to ask for a change to text which is transcluded over 100,000 times. Non-negotiable so go ask another admin or wait until some supporters have shown up. --kingboyk 19:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noticeboard addition?

message: 


*This should go at the head of the protected template. (→Netscott) 22:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thank you very much. --kingboyk 08:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another addition

message: Right now clicking on the word "libellous" takes you to the rather thorough article on libel. Someone who is just adding stuff isn't going to take the time to look up the definition there. I propose that a brief one-line definition of libel be added to the BLP. Something like "Libel: an untrue or unproven statement that may cause defamation of an individual" or something like that (the wording would have to be worked on, or perhaps lifted from the libel article). I just think asking editors to go off-page might be a bit less efficient than simply stating out right that this is what we mean by libel. Just a thought. Otherwise I think it's a good idea, although still open to interpretation in terms of what constitutes a "poor source". 23skidoo 06:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP needs to include definition of libel up front

message: Moved to Template talk:WPBiography. --kingboyk 15:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bio templates take up too much space

message: Remember, this is used on thousands of already cluttered talk pages.
:This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Negative material, especially if potentially libelous, must be removed immediately if it is unsourced or poorly sourced. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Address concerns relative to this policy at living persons biographies noticeboard.
—Centrx→talk • 17:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shorter and simpler

message: I think the text should be changed to the text in the nutshell.WAS 4.250 05:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds pretty fluffy to me. Anyway, this template is the specific important things about negative material that editors should know, not about the whole policy in general. —Centrx→talk • 03:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy in a nutshell says it better

message: The living persons biographies noticeboard did not exist when the "three-revert rule does not apply" formulation was created. Now that it does, emphasing taking it there makes sense. WAS 4.250 05:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This template needs an edit to mention 3RR, I think. As far as 3RR enforcement is concerned, we have WP:3RR#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material, which sez All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced blatantly defamatory, potentially libellous information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere, including associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection, and repeated reversion should be used only as a last resort. Reverts made to enforce this provision are generally not considered contentious, because they are necessary. However, it can be easy to confuse removing potentially libellous material with an edit war over neutrality issues, which are contentious edits. Err on the side of caution: do not repeatedly remove material you consider defamatory unless it is blatant, and seek intervention from others early at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I think it very desirable that the template includes some mention of not breaking 3RR; or a ref to taht section William M. Connolley 19:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This just encourages repeated reverting. There is no reason to do this; if someone is repeatedly adding libellous information, an administrator needs to be contacted to either block the user or protect the page (which might warrant additional mention, though this should be part of the purpose of the BLP noticeboard). As a matter of policy, users who repeatedly revert to remove libellous information should not be blocked, but that does not mean that reverting should be favored over more successful, lasting, less disruptive solutions to libel problems. —Centrx→talk • 23:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no change in the policy, but there is no need to encourage revert warring in the template the appears on every one of the talk pages. In any case, the proper course of action if libellous statements are repeatedly inserted is to report it to the appropriate noticeboard; it would be bad to penalize someone for zealously removing libellous statements, but nevertheless repeatedly reverting does not ultimately solve the libel problem. —Centrx→talk • 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of 3 revert thing

message: Is there a section-specific version of this template?  If not I'd like to request that an administrator either create or edit the existing template for use in a section.  Thanks, John Reaves 06:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This template goes on the talk page of articles related to living persons. It is automatically added to talk pages that a WikiProject Biographies template, for living persons, but it applies to any article. —Centrx→talk • 23:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for section 

message: WP:BLP applies "to biographical material about living persons in other articles."  If use of Template BLP were limited to biographies, then Template BLP would read something like "This biography must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons" or "This article related to living persons must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons" However, template BLP states "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons" and thus placement of the BLP template is not restricted by topic.  has a parameter to  where someone can add living=yes and the text of the BLP template appears.  In reviewing this (see Talk:Banjee#WP:BLP, I discovered that use of Template BLP on other than biography topics is not expressly part of the BLP guideline templates section, but the overall BLP guideline seems to permit it.  However, since every article potentially could include biographical material about living persons, template BLP potentially could be placed on the talk page of every article.  On the other end of the issue, restricting template BLP to only article having biography topics makes template BLP useless since  already serves that function.  The answer may be somewhere in the middle.  I think if we have a discussion on the impact of using template BLP, we may be able to derive guidance on using template BLP on other than biography articles.  Please place your comments below. -- Jreferee 17:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, every article needs to adhere to WP:BLP, whether or not the template is present.  On non-biography articles, I'd only actually place it on articles where there has been a problem in the past, or is especially likely to be a problem in the future (political campaign articles, scandal event articles, etc...).  GRBerry 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact of using template BLP on other than biography articles