Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 6

message: Sorry if this is an obvious question but what's the reason for treating living and dead people differently? Does Wikipedia have different responsibilites under the law?
Thanks,
nyenyec ☎ 20:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a word, yes. Also, dead people complain less. SBHarris 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue also came up in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_5#Biographies_of_Dead_People and, strangely enough, Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_5#When "living" is disputed. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for distinction between living vs. dead people? 

message: How does one go about identifying an identity? An admin claims to be contacted by a extremely well know conspiracy theorist on his talk page. The person posts solely from an IP address, that is not from the college they are known to be at, but a DSL line in another part of California. The admin has been in edit wars over the article, and the article ended up protected. One could even say the admin has been arguing that people that believe in conspiracy theories are "not all there." Which makes them an odd person to have been contacted if the theorist was looknig for a sympathetic ear. The admin edits the protected article according to the request the anon left. Oddly enough the anon did not leave any proof, register an account with their known email at their affiliated college or anything. Do you remove the paragraph? is this a COI? How does one go about verifying this, its kinda odd timing, and the persons homepage and articles they write on a known site have not been updated to reflect this "new view" they claim to have. While I am sure people change their ideas, how do I verify this? is an anon message enough to edit a protected article you had been in edit wars over? --NuclearZer0 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins have no special protection from following the same edit rules we all follow.  Being "contacted" by person x personally is not a reliable source.  I'm fairly sure the admin is not a "widely-known journalist". Feel free to revert and file a complaint against the admin if you feel they are acting improperly. Wjhonson 07:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifying an identity?

message: *21:43, 16 February 2007
*21:47, 16 February 2007
*22:15, 16 February 2007
Tom Harrison Talk 22:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins have no special protection from following the same edit rules we all follow.  Being "contacted" by person x personally is not a reliable source.  I'm fairly sure the admin is not a "widely-known journalist". Feel free to revert and file a complaint against the admin if you feel they are acting improperly. Wjhonson 07:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diffs

message: I would like to hear input on the following question.  Suppose someone on an article talk page expresses a personal opinion that a particular public figure is "crazy and bad".  That's it.  There are no facts being alleged, which could be right or wrong, or well-sourced or poorly-sourced or unsourced, it's simply one person's opinion that that public figure is "crazy and bad".  I will stipulate, by the way, that article talk pages are not for the sharing of such opinions and that someone who posts them should be gently informed to save such opinions for a personal blog or some other forum; the poster in question was in fact so advised.
My question is this:  Is an editor who sees someone expressing a personal opinion of this nature entitled to remove the entire talk page section, or even just to edit the other editor's words to eliminate any reference to the public figure, claiming that WP:BLP entitles them to do so immediately?  I would appreciate hearing opinions on this. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Any unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, whether opinion or purported fact, should be removed from articles and talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are Wikipedia editors considered to be living people for the purposes of this discussion? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I would consider the action to be on a par with the redaction of a personal attack - possibly appropriate but only to be done with caution and only for the most serious of inappropriate comments.  Rossami (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A distinction should be made between notable LPs and Wikipedia editors as it pertains to the application of various policies. For the former, WP:BLP applies for articles, talk pages, etc. For the latter, as Rossami says, WP:NPA applies, and WP:REFACTOR is always an option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's appropriate to remove the offending words, but only the smallest amount should be censored, and not a whole section, if it's not necessary.  We shouldn't let people use a few bad words, as an excuse to wipe out an entire thread of mainly legit conversation.   We should try to preserve the historical record of our discussions on talk pages, to the extent practical, and safe. --Rob 03:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I would say so, Antaeus. If you mean can we removed unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about ourselves, yes we can, certainly if someone uses our real names. If someone were to write "SlimVirgin's a moron,"  I'd be less inclined to claim BLP if I removed it, and anyway there aren't enough hours in the day. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would oppose the refactoring or blanking of those kinds of comments during deletion discussions.  "Non-notable" is not a personal attack at all.  It's not even a negative comment.  It's a simple assessment of how well known the person is by others.  "His book was trash" is also not a personal attack.  It is a negative opinion but it is inherently self-sourced - "I thought his book was trash".  As a reader, I would be entirely entitled to that personal opinion.  It wouldn't be appropriate to include my personal opinion in an article but it may well be relevant and appropriate in other contexts like deletion discussions.  Furthermore, it's a negative opinion about the work, not the author.  Books can't have their feelings hurt (and if an author's feelings are hurt by a single negative review, well, he/she is in the wrong line of work.)  Applying this principle to AFD discussions should be done only in the most egregious of circumstances.  Normal editorial discussions don't come close to the BLP line.  Rossami (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does [[WP:BLP]] justify the removal of talk page sections where someone expresses a personal opinion? 

message: I've noticed a lot of anon vandalism on BLPs lately.  Since we have this policy that holds those articles to a higher standard, I wonder if it's appropriate to make semi-protection become the norm for BLPs.  Users that aren't logged in could still post new info to the talk page, but not touch the bio itself.  I don't think it's too high a barrier to ask someone to create an account before they can edit BLPs. 
I don't want to create a bunch of work for admins here, so maybe I'm asking for a template that nonymous editors can use to tag an article as being a BLP and automatically protect it against anonymous edits.  And that implies that a logged-in editor could also remove that template.  But doing so would leave an audit trail, and unless there was a good reason to do it (the subject of the bio died, or the template were originally applied in error), it would affect the reputation of that editor, so it isn't something many people would do lightly.  
There.  I said it.  Now tell me why anonymous edits to BLPs should be allowed. The Monster 05:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that from the perspective of legal liability, anons are less problematic than editors with handles.  If an IP-anon defames someone, they can see the IP directly, which takes them one step closer to finding them for retribution.  semper fictilis 04:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be. However if it's a proxy or a shared IP without good records (whether they never existed or they were deleted coz it's been a while) or the ISP refuses to cooperate or whatever it'll be of limited use. On the other hand, if it's a registered editor with a resonable number of edits they could force wikipedia to hand over out logs related to that editor maybe. From there, there may be multiple IPs (including different ISPs), more recent IPs as well as multiple edits from the same IP at different times and it'll probably be more likely to be they may be able to track the person down. Nil Einne 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think that anonymous edits shouldn't be allowed at all (and yes, I know we'd lose thousands of valuable editors... I know a guy IRL who makes very good contributions to the Phillip Glass article but refuses to register, for example).  But, those folks who run Wikipedia have a very idealistic notion of how a Wiki can work, and right now they are the ones signing the checks :D  I seriously doubt the WP:SEMI will become the norm for any type of article, because it runs contrary to that same idealism. --Jaysweet 04:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it time to Make WP:SEMI the rule for WT:BLP?

message: Please review and comment at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28people%29#Proposed_courtesy_deletion_for_persons_of_borderline_notability . Kla'quot 07:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed courtesy deletion for persons of borderline notability 

message: Since  attribution is not the result of merging WP:V and WP:NOR, I believed it to be prudent to update this page to reflect that. DanielZimmerman 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed the main policies to reflect change to WP:A 

message: I've added to the section on reliable sources that self-published sources should not be added as an external link in BLPs, unless written or published by the subject. We already say that self-published sources should not be used as a source unless published or written by the subject.
I added this because I've noticed in a few articles (e.g. Patrick Holford) that, when prevented from using criticism in a blog as a source, editors are adding it as an external link instead, so I feel we should close that loophole. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But the wording could use help. See if this sparks some ideas for improving the wording: Self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used as sources or included as further reading (external links), unless written or published by the subject. WAS 4.250 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That would work, WAS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, agree.   semper fictilis 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blogs

message: Further to This discussion on the Daniel Brandt article, WAS posted this bit from Florida law (where the servers are...):
 says "One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public." Separating people into public versus nonpublic is for convinience. Privacy issues are actually decided by the specific encroachment of privacy alleged. But we should get nowhere near the line, so simplifying by dividing people up into private vs. public will work most the time. Anything controversial about a private living person that is "not of legitimate concern to the public" should not be in Wikipedia.
There is also now this hidden message on that same article up top. At first it was publically visible. The question is should the BLP policy take into account a person's status as public individual vs. private individual? to go with that, a 'private person' would have even some un-controversial material removed, while the public people would not. The problem is... who decides who is public vs. non-public? is Ben Affleck public or non? is Bill Gates public or non? is Scooter Libby public or non? is the Unabomber public or non? since it's all so subjective (our take, the media's take, the subject's take)... who decides? A famous actor deciding everything is private? What is a private person becomes the textbook def of public, then tries a 'take back'? Or someone that fate makes famous... who decides? 
I think we should have a section on this in the BLP policy, and a distinction of who is which that will hopefully non-edit-warrable... simplifications are bad (agreeing with WAS there on the Brandt page) but at the same time, people really either are or aren't. My thought was that if you meet x, y, and z criterion, you are public and we can add a  or  template that links back to the appropriate section/rules. George Bush and Oprah Winfrey for example are clearly public... and once info is out, it can't really be taken back. thoughts? - Denny 23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brandt is unequivocally a public figure, as are all the examples you cited. As such, any verifiable information about them is fair comment. It seems to me the BLP policy covers this pretty well already. Jokestress 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: my concern based on the chat with WAS is that 1) we need perhaps something different (more stringent?) for non-public people should be considered, and 2) that we need a clear policy definition of what makes someone public vs. private, and 3) a criterian for changes to those conditions (public to private, and private to public). To avoid messes like this ever coming up again. - Denny 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you may be misconstruing what "public" means in this legal sense. Plenty of public figures are reclusive or would prefer to be private, but that has absolutely no bearing on their legal standing. Someone who is not a public figure should not have an article. If they do, it will be deleted. There is no doubt that Brandt would meet any legal threshold for being a public figure, and this "non-public" argument is being advanced by people making groundless claims based on a misinterpretation. If someone is notable enough to have an article, and they are doing something that gets them mentioned in the national news many times, they are almost certainly a public figure. Since we already have a reliable source requirement, anyone following that policy is writing about a public figure. Whether they are "notable" is another matter and is a more arbitrary and non-legal definition used internally. Jokestress 00:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that distinction.  One thought I had come up with was that it might make sense to only include bios of people when there is enough material in secondary sources to build a proper and encyclopedic biography of the person's entire life.  That is surely a higher standard than we have now but, seems to me, might not be a bad idea.  So, in this case we'd definitely "lose" Daniel Brandt but we'd keep Google Watch.  Lots of links to individuals would be broken but I think WP would survive and would be stronger in the long run.  Making articles about living people of marginal notability can really piss them off and engender an incredible amount of focused bad will.MikeURL 22:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Public vs. Non-public people

message: I have fixed links to WP:V so that these point to WP:ATT and its different sections, where applicable. Another pair of eyes could be useful to check that I have not missed anything. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Cause I fixed 2 of them myself! I guess I needed more eyes as well!DanielZimmerman 04:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixes 

message: I haven't looked at this page in a while, and I'm surprised to see that the edits one should remove immediately and without discussion are now described as "unsourced... contentious material, whether negative or positive".  Is this a change of policy?  Does this mean that we have to demonstrate that an unsourced negative claim is contentious before removing it?  Thanks.  --Allen 01:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to say "unsourced negative" material. This change just points out that contentious material does not have to be negative. When did it only say "unsourced"? In any case, if it's merely unsourced, this policy doesn't apply. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow for an examination of this very issue. -- Jay Maynard 04:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (to Allen) You have to demonstrate that unsourced positive material is contentious before removing it, if you want it protected by this policy. Unsourced negative material should be assumed contentious, so you don't need to. -Amarkov moo! 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: One needs to make some kind of reasonable argument for it being contentious - such as it is negative or self serving or you don't believe it or it seems unlikely. If others accept it as a reasonable argument then no problem. The problem is we had one person insist that every unsourced claim was contentious and the point is use reasonable judgement on a claim by claim basis or at least on an article by article basis as when stubbing a whole article due to some article-wide concern. WAS 4.250 10:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the responses.  So if I'm reading things right, all three of you agree that negative material on living people is assumed contentious.  I can understand this, but I feel like the article could use clarification.  As it stands now, I think it opens the door for people to argue, "No, you can't summarily delete that sentence I wrote, because while it is negative and unsourced, everyone knows it's true, and therefore it isn't contentious."  Though it would be awkward in terms of prose, how about adding a parenthetical "(All negative material is assumed to be contentious)" to the article right before reference #2?  --Allen 17:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "negative material on living people is assumed contentious", if unsourced or poorly sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  has to be shown contentious to remove without discussion? 

message: I've created the first (very rough) draft of a proposal to delete some BLPs if the subject requests it. Input, suggestions, and help with the writing would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion]]

message: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons". Perhaps add, to emphasize the point off the top: "or adding biographical information about a living person to any Wikipedia page." Marskell 13:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most problematic articles aren't really biographies anyway, but instead are notable things organized on a page with the title of a living person's name. How about this for the first sentence: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical information about a living person to any Wikipedia page." WAS 4.250 14:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried that. The page is actually something of a misnomer. It should be "Biographical information" and not "Biographies of living people." Marskell 14:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's rename it to "Biographical information on living people" and keep the existing shortcuts. WAS 4.250 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but let's wait for a third and fourth opinion. Marskell 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Biographical" is redundant. How about "Information on living people" and "Editors must take particular care when writing about living persons". Kla'quot 17:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, redundant. But I hate killing the "B" in BLP, given how widely used the shortcut has become. Hm. Marskell 19:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The L is not redundant; the point of it is that Wikipedia must be protected from accusations of libel. Under the law of the US and many other nations, negative information about a living person which is false or unproven may be classed as libel. The Wikimedia Foundation is a charity, and can't be expected to deal with expensive lawsuits from offended biographees. I agree that having "bogus claims" in other articles is not acceptable either; but false or unsourced statements in articles on dead people or non-current organisations are much less likely to cause offence. This is why unsourced controversial claims in BLP articles must be deleted immediately, while such claims in non-BLP articles should be tagged with a  tag. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would strongly support such a page move. Indeed I've been thinking of something like this for a while. While I'm not sure, it appears to me some people make the mistake of thinking BLP applies only to biographies and only to the person who's biography it's about probably partially because of the title. I often remind people to remember the principles of BLP in articles where there is a significant LP factor. Nil Einne 15:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Db- I don't think this policy has only affected biographies of influential US media people. It usually becomes an issue in nearly all living people biographies and in fact has been quite controversial in some like Sathya Sai Baba. Also several areas of application of this policy are usually more severe then in non-biographies like the in the removal of irrelevant commentry & other potentially defamatory material from the talk pages of LP. And issues like privacy and controversy surrounding living people tends to be handled differently. So all in all, I don't think this policy just replicates other policies, it has made us a lot more strict around living people which I personally think is a good thing Nil Einne 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I decided it's best to follow normal procedure and list this in proposed move, add a header and I've also mentioned in the village pump as it's likely many people have not noticed this. It appears I made the right decision since we already have one person who has objected Nil Einne 16:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh & also I think this move may require a fair amount of work as it's likely to affect several templates. Probably a job for an admin and someone who has the time neither of which are not me Nil Einne 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If we keep the shortcuts, there is no much work to do. I am not sure we need a poll to effectuate this move. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: Yesterday, within the articles for deletion, I have found an article about a businessperson that had My family's website under external links. It is surely not my duty to protect others from their own lack of brain, but due to problems with stalkers, identity theft and others I want to propose that websites of that type should be deleted ASAP if they are not within the scope of notability of the person.  AlfPhotoman 15:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the  business person put up that personal website online, and it can be found via Google or other search engine, what would be the problem linking to it from a WP article's EL section? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't have to be aiding and abetting , besides, we would take the word of that person that it is in fact his family which would 100% fail WP:ATT  AlfPhotoman 15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal websites 

message: Wiki mail gave me two ideas.
#The application of this policy to Essjay's user page could have been interpreted to mean he must remove or source his Ph.D. claims if anyone contested them,
#The application of this policy to things like "this user is a vandal" on a user's talk page could be interpreted to require a link to evidence. 4.250.138.162 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ehm...why did this not occur to anybody before? Elemental my dear Watson  AlfPhotoman 18:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Situation 2 is already solved by the link on the user's page to his/her contributions.  Anyone may review that history and confirm or challenge the assessment of the user as a vandal for him/herself.  Rossami (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideas from Wiki mail

message: This page contains a section explaining "designated agent" of Wikipedia. 
But if I understand it correctly, it is the point of contact for deletion request based on copyright concern (DMCA takedown notice), not for libel or other legal problems that biographies of living persons tend to have. 
CDA 230 gives pretty good immunity to Wikimedia Foundation when it comes to libelous posts on Wikipedia, as I understand. I am not sure if it is a good idea to give impression that the designated agent will take care of non-copyright legal concerns. I am not saying that libelous stuff should remain in the article or such complaints should be ignored. But I suppose if Jimbo or others act to remove libelous or other objectionable material, that is out of courtesy and their sense of moral obligation, not out of some legal duty. 
So why not simply offer contact address? 
Tomos 14:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Designated Agent

message: Addressing vandalism and libel problems: should there be a special priority tag for the Recent Changes Patrol on biographies? This is to minimize the time in between someone adding unreferenced material and/or defamatory content and the deletion of it (or reversion of the page).  AlfPhotoman 15:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes priority 

message: We seem to be having a policy dispute at Talk:Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais. There currently exists significant well-cited and verified documentation as to the virulence and extent of this man's antisemitism and anti-semitic comments. However, it is being reverted by a user claiming that it "overwhelms" the article. On the other hand, there does not seem to exist either the desire, or the ability, by editors to find neutral or positive things to say about this person; at least those asked have not delivered. Is that an excuse to then remove valid information from this article, or is the apathy of editors an allowance to engage in what I contend is bowdlerization and whitewashing. Thank you for responding. -- Avi 20:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an individual who is notable for issues other than his antisemitism, so it should indeed be possible to find other material, and if some editors think the antisemitism is overwelming (the "near-demented judaic banking elite," the "rats of the world," the "scum of the earth," the "pigs and monkeys who should be annihilated" ), they should add other stuff to balance it out. On the other hand, the antisemitic statements are stunning, so it's not clear that that section shouldn't be somewhat overwhelming. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair is to say ALL the truth. If you have sources that are reliable it does not matter if the reader gets the shivers by reading the article.  AlfPhotoman 20:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we try to be encyclopedic and not a sensation rag. There is no reason to say the same thing three different ways. He is antijew and here is evidence. Not: He is antijew and here is evidence and here is more evidence and get a load of this too. WAS 4.250 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  We (as Wikipedia) don't have an opinion, remember that. Surely I see no point in repeating someone's agitation over and over again, but one cannot exclude some aspects of it because it is "too much"  AlfPhotoman 22:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of the article on Al-Sudais, I think the last section should be about the sermon that is quoted. "Al-Sudais in his own words in context" with extensive quotes and let the reader decide. The sermon as a whole is more about supporting Muslims than attacking Jews. He attacks Jews in the context of supporting Muslims and Supports Muslims in the context of supporting his God and all that is holy - might be a better way to say it. anyway, it should be about him and not about Jews. WAS 4.250 23:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  In this case I concur  AlfPhotoman 23:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not understand how one supports Muslims by attacking Jews. I also do not understand why his name is removed from :Category:Anti-Semitic people if there is enough evidence that "He is antijew". I see attempts to sweep the evidence under the rug, but we do not allow such censorship in WP. If he is a public figure, he should be held accountable for his speeches and that especially includes hate speech. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read his speech to see how he believes that "one supports Muslims by attacking Jews". Your belief does not matter as it is an article on him, not an article on you. As for the anti-semitic tag, I don't know, maybe he is not so much anti-jew as pro-muslim? Wikipedia is not for holding people accountable. You need to go elsewhere if that is the task you wish to perform. That's just not our thing. WAS 4.250 05:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thank you for your lecture. Please do not make this personal. Al-Sudais's beliefs can and should be described in NPOV manner. Basing on the refs, he definitely belongs in the AS people cat, and my quick search revealed more evidence, I'll see if it may be added to the article to make it as uncontroversial as possible. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I read Martin Gilbert your example and Joel Beinin and it looks like Joel is a bit of an activist and therefore not a reliable source for a balanced opinion on a book covering a subject he is an actist on. So that critisicm seems correctly removed. What do unbiased reliable published sources say about Martin? Maybe those could be added to the article. WAS 4.250 22:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beinin is the professor of Middle East History at Stanford University, where he has taught since 1983. He also serves as Director of the Middle East Studies Department at the American University in Cairo. How is that not a reliable source? On the other hand the criticism of Sudais comes from a British journalist. How is a journalist a more reliable source than a notbale professor and director of institutes?Bless sins 17:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a matter of evaluating the limitations of sources. As a rule, newspapers report on everything so the default expectation is that they lack both bias and expertise so they get the details wrong but the overall story right. Experts and organizations that work hard in a specific area can be expected to get the details right but have biases that may be minor or major. Wikipedia editors need to look carefully at all sources to evaluate their limitations. There is no such thing as a source that is useable as being reliable for all claims it might make even though our policies simplify the situation to make it sound that way. WAS 4.250 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV#Bias says that all sources have bias. Thus, we are to pick sources that are recognized as experts in their respective field. In any case, why is it wrong for us to have a paragraph of criticism by Beinin, but absolutely ok for us to devote half of the article on Sudais on criticism?Bless sins 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not ok for us to lack criticism of Martin Gilbert or to devote half of the article on Sudais on criticism. Perhaps you could create or find an appropriate statement to put on those articles warning readers of the limitations of those articles as they now exist? Wikipedia is a work in progress and not a completed work. WAS 4.250 07:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think tagging the article is the best way. IF removing criticism is wrong, then we should apply that to Gilbert as well.Bless sins 19:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a judgement call and the best you can do in an article that gets people emotional is to find neutral people to come to the article. You did that by coming here. WAS 4.250 22:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about trying WP:RFC/BIO, a request there will bring about a broader consensus than "just" the opinion of thos interested in this guideline.  AlfPhotoman 22:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a "judgement call" allows double standards as we can clearly see on Martin Gilbert and Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais. I would like a better interpretation.Bless sins 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would "a better interpretation" prevent a "double standard"? As near as I can tell, everything we do is subject to our all too human failings. I can't see how words on paper or the screen are going to fix the problem that we are all human. WAS 4.250 07:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A better (by which I mean clearer) interpretation would leave very little to the imagination. Currently, I have shown you what is happening: not a word of criticism is allowed on Martin Gilbert, yet more than half the article on Sudais is nothing but criticism. If a clearer interpretation was found then, users would be forced to obey it.Bless sins 19:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is simple, if there is nothing that we can attribute to a secondary source saying that X is a nice guy, but a lot saying that X is a nasty guy we cannot claim that X is a nice guy just to balance it. On the other hand, just because sources claiming that X is an ass are more readily available should we not stop searching for other sources.  AlfPhotoman 14:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and overwhelming clause 

message: This user page has me wondering if there should be some sort of a BLP tag requirement for "articles" on user pages? This ANI post relates to this.  06:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hasn't Jimmy Wales personally ruled in previous disputes that BLP without exception applies to anything on our servers, no matter where? Maybe stand-alone pages should just have a simple template that can be popped on the top (even the BLP template of  itself could work). - Denny 06:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, not the BLP template, it has warnings for when placed outside of Talk page. But something similar perhaps. - Denny 06:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP tag for user pages

message: Forgive me if I'm asking a question that has been answered many times. I was looking at the Angela Cannings article, and noticed that it didn't have that box at the top of the talk page, saying that it's about a living person, and that any controversial unsourced material should be removed immediately. So I went to some other talk pages about living people, to see what the box looked like in the source code. I found  in some, and 
::
in others. I decided to use just , because the other box was more complicated. (Am I meant to fill in something after "class=" or after "importance="?) If I chose the wrong box, would somebody please fix it? And any link to a page where I could read up about how to fill in the fields in the more complicated box would be appreciated. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WPBiography tag is also for placing the article into the Biography project. You can leave the class and importance blank, and a project member will come by eventaully and assess it. -- Avi 16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. I'll do that in future. ElinorD (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to tag a BLP talk page

message: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons → Wikipedia:Biographical information on living people — to better emphasise that the policy applies to all information not just in biographies, see #First sentence Nil Einne 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support - per my earlier discussions in #First sentence Nil Einne 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See the First sentence section in BLP talk. WAS 4.250 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: True, but now that this is started let it play itself out. WAS 4.250 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we didn't need a poll but I felt it was a good idea to follow the normal process and properly list it in proposed move and in the VP. That way, if there is an editor who disagrees for whatever reason, it's difficult for them to argue the move was out of process or without proper consultation or whatever. Having listed it, I decided to add the poll just as an easy way to make sure there wasn't significant objection. Nil Einne 13:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: People keep saying that BLP is just a hard ass version of ATT. It is not. Sensitivity for living human beings is based on morality. Our libel and copyright policies are based on legalities. Our ATT policy based on credibility. These are very different motivations and thus very different policies. WAS 4.250 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe just call it 'Living People'. Lou Sander 02:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Very much agreed. Emphasisis that this policy is more extreme than WP:ATT out of moral respect to human lives is important. How does Biographical information affects lives sound? Its not in active voice grammatically, however its a relatively brief manner of insisting the tone of the policy. Leopold Stotch 10:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, this is not just a different version of WP:ATT. Everything should be verified, but that doesn't give people a license to remove things they know to be true just because there doesn't happen to be a source for it included, if there's a reasonable expectation it could be sourced. BLP not only allows that for information within its scope, it demands it, and exempts people doing such from any sort of edit warring sanction. No version of a sourcing policy could do that. -Amarkov moo! 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've already replied to the ATT=BLP argument in #First sentence if you haven't read it Nil Einne 13:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Information is more accurate than material. Please read the articles. False information is still information and it is a completely mistaken notion to think otherwise. Information theory is not philosophy where you can wave your hand and make stuff up. WAS 4.250 14:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm still in favor of Wikipedia:Biographical information affects lives, as the title alone insinuates that the policy calls for taking care with biographical information rather than just describing the subject of the policy, which I think implicitly makes it a more accurate title. Although it does lack the specification "living people," I think that the notion that the policy is regarding living people is implied in the title (i.e. it can be inferred that the lives being affected are those that are the subject of the biographical data). Leopold Stotch 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest Wikipedia:Living Persons. Brief. Easily abbreviated. Covers it all. Lou Sander 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is there is opposition to this because it remove BLP as the primary shortcut Nil Einne 11:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support - per my earlier discussions in #First sentence Nil Einne 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support - per my earlier discussions in #First sentence Nil Einne 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: # Rossami (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: I'm in favour of a move, since this policy just isn't solely about biographies anymore. But maybe we could discuss about a proper new name for the policy first? Wikipedia:Biographical information on living people sounds good, but I'm not sure it's the best possible name we can find. --Conti|✉ 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the First sentence section in BLP talk. WAS 4.250 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: True, but now that this is started let it play itself out. WAS 4.250 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we didn't need a poll but I felt it was a good idea to follow the normal process and properly list it in proposed move and in the VP. That way, if there is an editor who disagrees for whatever reason, it's difficult for them to argue the move was out of process or without proper consultation or whatever. Having listed it, I decided to add the poll just as an easy way to make sure there wasn't significant objection. Nil Einne 13:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: People keep saying that BLP is just a hard ass version of ATT. It is not. Sensitivity for living human beings is based on morality. Our libel and copyright policies are based on legalities. Our ATT policy based on credibility. These are very different motivations and thus very different policies. WAS 4.250 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe just call it 'Living People'. Lou Sander 02:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Very much agreed. Emphasisis that this policy is more extreme than WP:ATT out of moral respect to human lives is important. How does Biographical information affects lives sound? Its not in active voice grammatically, however its a relatively brief manner of insisting the tone of the policy. Leopold Stotch 10:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, this is not just a different version of WP:ATT. Everything should be verified, but that doesn't give people a license to remove things they know to be true just because there doesn't happen to be a source for it included, if there's a reasonable expectation it could be sourced. BLP not only allows that for information within its scope, it demands it, and exempts people doing such from any sort of edit warring sanction. No version of a sourcing policy could do that. -Amarkov moo! 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've already replied to the ATT=BLP argument in #First sentence if you haven't read it Nil Einne 13:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I think we might need to discuss the choice of name a bit better. While we discussed this in first sentence, with more people now involved (hopefully) and at least one alternative suggestion (Biographical material instead of information) which sounds good to me. Further, I've just realised we were going to change persons to people (show's how much I've thought about the move). Why was this? On consideration, I think we should stick with living persons. We should be emphasising persons as inviduals not people as a group. Nil Einne 12:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Information is more accurate than material. Please read the articles. False information is still information and it is a completely mistaken notion to think otherwise. Information theory is not philosophy where you can wave your hand and make stuff up. WAS 4.250 14:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm still in favor of Wikipedia:Biographical information affects lives, as the title alone insinuates that the policy calls for taking care with biographical information rather than just describing the subject of the policy, which I think implicitly makes it a more accurate title. Although it does lack the specification "living people," I think that the notion that the policy is regarding living people is implied in the title (i.e. it can be inferred that the lives being affected are those that are the subject of the biographical data). Leopold Stotch 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest Wikipedia:Living Persons. Brief. Easily abbreviated. Covers it all. Lou Sander 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is there is opposition to this because it remove BLP as the primary shortcut Nil Einne 11:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other names

message: I noticed 3 articles existing for no other reason than to document controversy/criticism about living persons.  One was about Hillary Clinton, the other about Michael Moore, and the third about George W. Bush. I don't care how controversial someone is or how well justified the criticism may be. Under no circumstances should wikipedia tolerate entire articles devoted to controversy and criticism about ANY living person under ANY circumstances.  If we allow it for the president of the United States, pretty soon it will be the president of the PTA, and then it will be you.  Editors should be forced to summarize only the most notable criticism in a subsection of the person's article, and even here it should be very brief, in fact there should be an explicit limit (i.e. no more than 10% of anyone's article should be criticism). If people want to cite criticism of the war they can do it in article relating to the war, not an article about criticism of Bush (which shouldn't be allowed to exist). Wikipedia is not the place to blather on negative material about ANY living person and this should be explicitally written into policy. Wikipedia has far too many editors that come here for no other reason than to trash living figures and we need to start weeding them and have very clear unambiguous policy to discourage them and make them very easy to counter. WPBio 22:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... think about the implications here. We now have to somehow get 90% of Osama bin Laden to not be negative. I'd love to know how you intend to do that. And even if that weren't the case, undue weight is an NPOV violation. -Amarkov moo! 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His article doesn't even have a criticism section that I could see.  I'm specifically talking about subjective criticism, the type the editors fight over. WPBio 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not. The above reasoning by WPBio is ridiculous. We already limit articles based on notability. YOU are not notable that's why we don't have an article about you, nor the fact that you may actually be a aardvark trying to pass itself off as human. Once you and your controversy becomes notable, then we should not bar any article about it. Wikipedia is to be the sum total of all knowledge, and Anna Nicoles' drug overdoes qualifies as knowledge, just as much as Ted Haggard's gay sex. Wjhonson 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there's a difference between knowledge and opinions.  Saying Anna Nicole overdosed on drugs is a fact. Quoting somone calling her a bad role model because of it is opinion WPBio 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ROFL! Heh, heh, gasp. Under no circumstances should wikipedia tolerate entire articles devoted to controversy and criticism about ANY living person under ANY circumstances.  If we allow it for the president of the United States, pretty soon it will be the president of the PTA, and then it will be you. You know, that's exactly the argument we used to try to ban all unauthorized bio articles about living people per se. It was roundly rejected, mostly by anonymous people who felt in no particular danger of ever having to fight one of those bios, themselves. Greater empathy hath no man, than was evidenced in those debates. I finally gave up in disgust. So will, in time, you also. SBHarris 23:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not including subjective criticism where it exists still violates WP:NPOV, under the undue weight clause. To do this, there must be an exception to NPOV, which is not a trivial matter. -Amarkov moo! 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies are a separate article because the main article got way too big.  About five different sections were split out into subarticles, including controversies, political views, awards and honors, list of books about her, etc.  As you can see there was no desire to highlight negative material separately, simply a desire to restrict the main article to only the straight biographical sections in order to make the article less long.  Wasted Time R 02:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We need a section prohibiting articles related to controversy about living persons

message: ===No hateration===   
    
Wikipedia's no hateration policy reflects the fact that any controversial content about a living person should be factual and not opinions. So while it's encyclopedic to cite media reports documenting the fact that Britney Spears has been seen at various night clubs, it is considered pure hateration to quote a media critic describing Britney Spears as a "bad role model" because of how she spends her recreation time. Other examples of hateration include quoting critics speculating that acts of charity are simply self-serving self-promotion. Hateration should be removed immediately and repeatedly, even if doing so requires violating the 3 revert rule. In general, pettiness, and mean spirited commentary, even if attributed to a reliable source, is of little encyclopedic value and damages wikipedia's credibility, causes ill will towards wikipedia, and is hurtful to real people. Although such content has become increasingly routine, even in reputable media, wikipedia strives for the highest standars of quality information especially when discussing sensetive matters related to real peopleWPBio 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy I would like to add

message: Wikipedia's no hateration policy reflects the fact that any controversial content about a living person should be factual and not opinions. So while it's encyclopedic to cite media reports documenting the fact that Britney Spears has been seen at various night clubs, it is considered pure hateration to quote a media critic describing Britney Spears as a "bad role model" because of how she spends her recreation time. Other examples of hateration include quoting critics speculating that acts of charity are simply self-serving self-promotion. Hateration should be removed immediately and repeatedly, even if doing so requires violating the 3 revert rule. In general, pettiness, and mean spirited commentary, even if attributed to a reliable source, is of little encyclopedic value and damages wikipedia's credibility, causes ill will towards wikipedia, and is hurtful to real people. Although such content has become increasingly routine, even in reputable media, wikipedia strives for the highest standars of quality information especially when discussing sensetive matters related to real peopleWPBio 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No hateration

message: *Oppose. No violation of 3RR should be allowed. That policy would mean changing the 3RR too, and is not acceptable. Consensus is how to deal with content disputes. Arbustoo 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The reason I put on that "failed verification" tag was because it *did* fail verification.  The sentence the reference is attached to says that the policy applies to talk pages, user pages, and project space.  The reference is a mailing list post by Jimbo which says nothing about talk pages, user pages, and project space. Ken Arromdee 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed verification 

message: I want to check opinion on whether the policy page could say more about handling unsourced statements in articles. The line on contentious material is clearly established. My problem is with maybe-uncontestious-but-still-significant material that is unsourced, and my example here is Rosa Luz Alegría in aspects such as her claimed status as a role model. Deleting that as unsourced would change the balance of the whole article and IMO just worsen systemic bias. (I've used the same example in discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion about bias and NPOV issues.) I'm wondering if there might be consensus about the steps to take in improving articles. Apart from tagging as citation needed what's in between ignoring an unsourced significant statement and deleting it?? Is it worth writing a few sentences on getting it right?? --VSerrata 12:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our problem here would be that it could be interpreted as "our" opinion. We don't have an opinion (as WP) therefore whatever statement we make has to be attributed to a secondary source. Sometimes we could use a weak source ... but never no source  AlfPhotoman 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with unsourced significant statements  

message: In the wake of the Sinbad incident, which was summarized in the recent Wikipedia Signpost, multiple users have started falsifying the deaths of various living people.  See the discussion here at WP:ANI.  
Should WP:BLP contain language that explicitly prohibits this?  Or is it already covered, such that warning against fictional murder would constitute WP:BEANS? YechielMan 05:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have adequate policies covering this. Thank you for your concern. WAS 4.250 07:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies on living people must actually be about living people (sigh) 

message: I don't normally deal with BLP type articles, but clearly come up agasint them sometimes.  How does this area normally deal with those whose notability is brief and has little, if any, long term effect?
There are currently a handful of articles in the Military History area where the subjects hit the papers for a few days, therefore meeting the notability guideline, and thereafter have no media interest, so drying up the qualification.
Grateful if someone could advise on any approach that's been used in the past.
ALR 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the core problem that led to the WP:NOTNEWS discussion.  The easiest solution is to merge-and-redirect the page into some larger topic.  If none can be found, consider nominating the page for deletion with the very clear explanation that we thought the subject might be notable when we started the article but subsequent evidence (or more specifically, lack of evidence of continuing coverage) showed that we were wrong.  Rossami (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flash in the pan notability 

message: I suggest a very simple addition. "Biographies should not have trivia sections, as the bullet point list format of arbitrary information tends to accumulate unsourced claims, often of a damaging nature. Relevant, sourced claims from trivia sections which are present should be factored into the main article, and the remaining section content should be removed when present."--Eloquence* 02:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please.  Jkelly 02:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition: no trivia 

message: My gut instinct is that the last paragraph in the Janet Street-Porter article, which describes how the police have decided to take no action over an accusation against her of racism, shouldn't be there, particularly now that the incident's currency has passed. The trouble is that the paragraph is well-sourced, and so I am not sure I could get away with removing it. My feeling is that the paragraph, the best-sourced in this (poor-quality) article, is out of proportion to her life story as a whole and irrelevant to her notability. I also believe that it describes what amounts to a non-event. Should this woman (not someone  I like, actually), a member of the Liberal Democrats who is always outspokenly liberal, have mud permanently stuck to her name in a Wikipedia article now that the minor newspaper kerfuffle has faded away? 
Are there any grounds on which I could remove this paragraph? qp10qp 18:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there's a basis to remove it entirely, but it should at least be cut down to size - which I went and did. Metamagician3000 09:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's since removed it entirely - I'm happy with that. Metamagician3000 05:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Well-sourced non-event

message: A link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people has been added to the RecentChanges page under the "Utilities" row, titled BLP. This can facilitate the finding of vandalism to biographies of living persons to avoid a "Sinbad-type" incident happening in the future. Cross-posted to WP:VPN, WP:AN, WT:BLP, #wikipedia, and #wikipedia-en. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP recentchanges 

message: Through my time as an admin, I've told many, many people that blanking pages is never the proper way to handle bad content.  That there are always other proper ways to handle the problems.  Now I find myself facing a person repeatedly blanking a page out of a legitimate BLP concern.  And finding myself in a bit of a quandary over whether my "no blanking" statements may have hit a snag.  The page in question is Louise Lanctôt.  Before blanking it was a very well formatted and wikified, but totally unsourced article that makes some fairly negative claims.  So I guess I'm wanting extra eyes, and advice of how to proceed.  I found this while on Short Pages patrol, and my major concern is that the page not be totally blanked, or even blanked down to the tags as it currently is.  Any advice/assistance in getting past the impasse would be greatly appreciated. - TexasAndroid 22:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know blanking is considered vandalism, so NO. BLP issues should be first discussed on the talk page of an article. If that leads nowhere one can make a request for comment. If that still leads nowhere there are the arbitration bodies.  AlfPhotoman 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing problematic material from a biography of a living person is never vandalism.  If someone removes a BLP violation inelegantly, as happened in this case, the proper response is to help them out by, for instance, writing a one-sentence entirely uncontroversial stub.  Calling their edit "vandalism", or reverting them, is just going to escalate the situation.  Please think of solving the problem as being more important than obeying various Wikipedia guidelines.  Jkelly 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, a BLP violation justifies page blanking. If the whole article violates BLP, then there is nothing to left to remain. That article contains many negative statements that aren't sourced, judging from a brief look. You should not be reverting that blanking. Frise 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't it be either deleted or stubified in such cases, rather than blanked? *Dan T.* 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever works, yeah. Frise 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep. the main point behind any BLP action is for the offending material to be removed. Some methods are certainly better than others, but the objective remains. Frise 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does a BLP violation justify page blanking? 

message: Hi folks. Just a quick question, hopefully. Whilst commenting upon the GA nom for Jihad (song), I suggested that the lead should contain cites, esp. in relation to the part where the stance of LP is advanced. Other editors at the 'review' don't seem to appreciate this? Although it is sourced elsewhere, surely a controversial topic such at this should be sourced at first mention: the lead, remember, is the first thing seen by the reader. The JPStalk to me 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jihad (song)]] 

message: Do BLP protections extend to editors? If not, why not? Thanks! - Denny (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly not. Editors are not (mostly) the subject of bios here and therefore they shouldnt come under the umbrella of this poluicy. Were they to do so it would mean a huge shift in what BLP means and would need widespread acceptance to keep the opening sentence of this project page, SqueakBox 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes and no. BLP is based on morality and not just law so legal liability is not the essence of the policy. But NPOV is the agreed on community standard so morality as in "don't say bad stuff about people" is also not the essence. Some feel that to the degree that BLP applies to editors, it is covered already in NPA, while others feel BLP can rightly be used here as well. We have the subjects of articles themselves talking on talk pages and so are we to have one standard for them because we have an article on them but not for us? That makes no sense. Many regular editors here have articles on them, so are they now priveleged characters? what would be the point of that? Also, I think it should apply to user claims on their user pages but the community soundly defeated that proposal so we know BLP does not apply to unsourced claims you tell about yourslf on your user page even tho it applies to content in article space. Does that help? WAS 4.250 10:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised to hear you say, "BLP is based on morality and not just law so legal liability is not the essence of the policy."  I don't think that is true.  (1) the policy was started in response to incidents that could have lead to legal problems (2) the moment we start taking a "moral" stance as an encyclopedia we run into all sorts of POV problems. Johntex\talk 15:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started the WP:BLP policy proposal based on a plea from Daniel Brandt concerning our article on him in which he suggested that "living people deserve a special sensitivity" and this was fleshed out by SlimVigin and made into policy with the encouragement of Jimbo based on morality and not simply legal liability considerations. See User_talk:WAS_4.250/Archive_05#Talk:WP:BLP. WP:NPOV is not to be compromised by WP:BLP. But simple decency and privacy considerations do not compromise our NPOV mandate. WAS 4.250 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP protections for editors 

message: Since the move request seems to have stalled without a clear consensus on the best name and whether to move, could we at least get a better template for non biography articles which predominantly deal with LP? I tried adding the template Template:BLP () to Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming but it was fairly quickly reverted (I haven't tried discussing yet). The template doesn't say it's only for biographies and indeed the template instructions says it's suitable for other articles dealing in information on living people like lists. But my concerns are that the template does say 'controversial material of any kind' (shouldn't we say 'related to living people') and it also adds the article to :Category:Biography articles of living people (which doesn't seem suitable for lists and similar articles to me). I'm thinking of making a new template but seek feedback first Nil Einne 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better BLP template? 

message: I have made a proposal on the page Talk:Bob Dylan to remove Bob Dylan from Category:Converts to Christianity. Please go there to discuss. Jewish is an ethnic identity as well as a religious identity, and thus it seems to be appropriate for Dylan. Converts to Christianity lacks such an ethnic identity. I question whether we can presume a religious identity or place somebody in such a category when we lack the evidence. This is especially a problem with a living person who is famously private. I've discussed the issue on Talk:Bob Dylan, but I think this issue applies to many living persons. --Metzenberg 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presumption of a religious identity 

message: I wanted to ask for advice here about these articles. I am concerned that they in effect, particularly the Jennifer Chiba article, advance the position that Chiba may have murdered Smith. The edits I have in mind would decimate the Chiba article and alter part of the Smith article which was accepted when it was featured; so I want to get a second opinion before I plunge in. 
What strikes me is that Chiba has not been charged with Smith's murder, and that all there is to go on in that regard is rumours and amateur detective work. When I looked into the sources, I was struck by the fact that they are actually more balanced than the use made of them in these articles might imply. For example, we say that Chiba refused to speak to police, whereas the Guardian-article source goes on to quote her as denying that. This seems to me an example of misusing sources to advance a position. We have a quote from a bloke from a nearby record shop saying he didn't believe Smith killed himself, but, unlike the source, we don't have a balance of quotes in that section, even from that same interviewee; in fact a certain weight is given to the idea that Smith may have been cleaning up and happy. We have a quote from a bloke on the other side of the Atlantic saying they were a "Sid and Nancy" couple. The sources, which by the way are mostly not high-quality sources, are more cautious and balanced overall. The autopsy report which contains reservations about the death being suicide is solid and definitely worth quoting, but nowhere does it accuse Chiba; yet it is juxtaposed with the information that she was alone with him at the time, during an "emotional fight". Once again, the POV presentation of the evidence seems to me to advance a questionable position based on partial sampling of the sources. It is mentioned that the case remains open; but surely the police would have charged Chiba by now if they thought she had murdered Smith. There would be less innuendo in saying that they are no longer investigating the case.
My ideal solution for the Chiba article would be to delete it entirely, on grounds of non-notability, since the whole article is about the death of Smith, which is covered in his own article. And I would remove certain quotes from the Smith article, make the language more objective and neutral, and try not to hack it about in a way that would affect its featured quality.
Any advice? Am I judging this correctly? If any admins are reading, by all means carry out the necessary yourselves, if you agree with me. (I don't actually know how to put up an article for deletion.) qp10qp 02:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Metamagician has dealt with the Chiba article. Many thanks. I need to be bolder, I think. The Smith page has more subtle problems, which I should be able to address without major surgery. qp10qp 14:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jennifer Chiba]] and [[Elliott Smith]]

message: Right now, there are folks who are claiming that emails from Jimbo give them the right to remove ALL unsourced information from articles, whether or not it's contentious.
The policy currently states several times,Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.
However, folks are claiming BLP gives them a inborn right to do things like this, where the material involved is not contentious at all. I will not call it vandalism, because obviously they think the policy gives them that ability, but this policy needs to be followed better either way (can you imagine what the Bill Clinton article looked like if this "Uber-BLP" policy was followed to the letter? Either remove the word contentious from the policy, and let the articles be eviscerated and be rebuilt, or bring back BLP to what it says in the policy. SirFozzie 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While blanking like that is bad, material should still be sourced per WP:V. BLP doesn't justify removing it - the editor who objects should put citation needed tags on the material that is in doubt or an overall citation tag at the top of the page, then allow time for editors to add sources. Unsourced material should be deleted after a time, but not immediately if it's not controversial stuff. While a huge blanking like that should be reverted, you should make an effort to find sources for the material as well, or at least restore the material with  tags.  --Minderbinder 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's been tried, the user in question, User:Burntsauce is claiming that letters from Jimbo Wales trump the BLP policy and has basically done that to a lot of articles. When the material is restored, doesn't matter if it's been fact tagged, he reblanks it per BLP. I know the WP:PW folks are trying their hardest to get this sorted and sourced, but the person in question is refusing to either work with them, or restore it with fact tags. SirFozzie 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's revert warring and continually blanking major portions of pages, that's probably grounds to go to an admin and see what they say, it may be a situation where a block for disruption is appropriate. If you can't get a solution that way, you might want to try a user request for comment. This doesn't seem like a problem with the policy - it seems like regardless of how it might be worded, this editor just seems intent on ignoring (or misreading) it as well as ignoring consensus. In the meantime, I assume there's enough of a consensus to revert the blanking, although the sooner sources can be added, the better.  --Minderbinder 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's part of the problem, some admins are praising him for his assiduousness in BLP enforcement. SirFozzie 22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to the biography of a living person, sources must be provided ... PERIOD. Jimbo's word in this situation is law because its his reputation (as well as the foundations) on the line (and all over the news) when the lawsuit hits. This sort of unsourced commentary is why WP:OFFICE was established. Ask Danny, i'm pretty sure he'd back up the removal of unsourced commentary in the biography of a living person who could sue. Jimbo's commentary here is quite explicit as to what needs to be done. Stop pestering Burntsauce, stop bitching at me, stop the random "lets change the policy" bullshit. Burntsauce is doing what needs to be done, instead how about you get off your ass and start finding some RELIABLE SOURCES so the content doesnt need to be removed?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well not so much because Jimbo says, but because it is the right thing to do.  Which is, of course, why he said it.  Um yes. I think I'll shut up now, as we seem to be pretty much in agreement. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine, Then change the BLP policy to state that, period? I'm just following what the page says. Ok? SirFozzie 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This policy does not stand alone. You need to comply and follow WP:NPOV and WP:V as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Burnstsauce is ignoring th policy, how is that doing what needs to be done? Especially since he refuses to discuss the situation with the Pro Wrestling Wikiproject. Fozzie is right, and Burnt should at least discuss it at WP:PW if he is going to ignor policy and blank tons of articles. 22:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TJ, drop it, it's not worth the high blood pressure from it. If that's what the policy will be treated as (never mind what it was before all of this, because it's superseded apparently by Jimbo), then we have to deal with the way things are, not the way things ought to be. And no one was complaining about WP:V, or WP:NPOV. Look at every blanking. It's all BLP all the time, when that was NOT what the policy said. Anyway, I'm going to take my own advice and drop it. SirFozzie 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There are thousands and thousands of wrestling related articles, and some have a higher priority than others. Bagwell is not in the spotlight anymore and was never more than a mid-card wrestler. So he wasn't a high priority. Same thing with Akbar. TJ Spyke 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Low priority articles about living people which do not contain any reliable sources, and have been requesting sources for weeks (or months) should most likely be stubbed to prevent further embarrassment to the project.   Yamaguchi先生 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So adding sources to articles about living people isn't a priority for WP:PW, yet edit warring and arguing about whether "four way" has a hyphen is? I went through :Category:American professional wrestlers up to the letter 'H', and over 90% of the article were unsourced or had no inline references. Some of the members of WP:PW have shown contempt for policies for too long in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 11:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "show contempt"? If Burnstsauce wants to help Wikipedia, he can aid us in sourcing articles rather than misinterpeting BLP and blanking articles (since BLP says to remove contentious material, not all material). TJ Spyke 05:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems a shame that some editors are more concerned with blanking and deleting than with bothering to help find references, but it all depends on one's perspective on the word "contribution" I guess. But anyway. Will I have the full backing of the Wikipedia community if I go ahead and apply BLP to the likes of Bill Clinton, Robert DeNiro and Babe Ruth? Or will I be recipient of a censure because they're not pro-wrestling articles? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suriel, I wouldn't do that, ESPECIALLY since you've brought it up here, WP:POINT would hit you. SirFozzie 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason why BLP wouldn't be applied on those articles.  If there's unsourced controversial info, it should go immediately.  And if there's info that needs a source, it certainly can be tagged and then deleted later if a source isn't provided although I suspect any source requests would be filled quickly on those articles.  While BLP talks about contentious material, any uncited material, particularly material that has had a request for a citation that isn't filled can be deleted per WP:V.  And unlike Bill Clinton which has over forty citations, Skandor_Akbar has zero even though a source request tag has been on the article for months.  While blanking isn't the best way to handle an article, sadly in this case it looks like many of these articles may never get citations unless someone forces the issue like that.  --Minderbinder 17:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Show contempt" refers to the fact that from what I've seen, well over 90% of articles about American wrestlers were not properly sourced, and unsourced content continued to be added to them on a weekly basis. That has improved over the last couple of weeks admittedly, as a direct result of the stubbing of articles it has to be said. As Minderbinder states the issue has been forced, and the result is that articles are now being sourced. So in my opinion editors' time would be better employed sourcing the articles rather than arguing about the blanking. One Night In Hackney303 20:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not arguing that side anymore, ONiH, I just made the removal of the word contentious prevented a situation like this to prevent something like this from happening again. A lot of the information being removed was NOT contentious (as the policy states), but as was strongly pointed out to me above, it doesn't have to be contentious (like a list of wrestlers Skandor Akbar managed) to be removed, it just has to be unsourced. Anyway, I did my WP:BRD and will leave it alone. SirFozzie 20:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know Fozzie, I was replying to TJ. I still think something positive has come out of this, although it could have been handled more diplomatically to begin with instead of the bull in a china shop approach. One Night In Hackney303 20:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Word Contentious needs to go if BLP's going to be enforced the way it is

message: I have argued long about the notability creep which, due to the infinite space in Wikipedia, allows the notability theshhold for living person biography to fall so low that eventually every one of us who does anything notable which is recorded in any local or verifiable source, will have our own personal bio stubs in Wikipedia, like it or not. I have proposed that bios be subject to approval by the living subject: the rule being "Accept present Wiki rules for your bio, or simply notify Wikipedia that you decline to be bio'ed at all."  But this proposal has met with resistance by people who cannot stand the idea of no Wiki at all for a Bill Clinton or a George W. Bush. Okay. Fine. So now, I propose a more modest version: No wiki-bio without consent of the living subject, for anybody who is not ALREADY bio'ed in a standard paper encyclopedia. If they're famous enough or notable enough for THAT, they don't need to give consent. Otherwise, they do. That should stop notability creep dead in its tracks, and make Angela Beesley a happy woman, and Daniel Brandt(name corrected by User:SqueakBox) a happy man. What say you? SBHarris 01:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree (btw, it's Daniel Brandt, not David :D).. We already have Notability standards (the focus of third party, Reliably sourced articles). This is notability creep in the other direction. SirFozzie 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that notability creep is going in the other direction and am not sure if this good as there are far more people who want an article than there are people who dont and we are syupposed to be the encyclopedia of everything, SqueakBox 01:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If notability creep is going in the other direction, that would mean there are fewer and fewer biographies of living persons on WP each day. Are you claiming this? Support it with facts. My proposal, BTW, would also get rid of vanity biographies; leave that for Who's Who. WIkipedia was never supposed to be an encyclopedia of everything: see WP:NOT for the many things it's not an encylopedia of. Personal information on non-famous people would merely be one more addition to an already long list. At present, Wikipedia has stringent rules about self-promotion of either companies or persons, UNTIL the self-promotion becomes successful elsewhere. Then it's okay. There's something very odd or perverse about that, especially when it's combined with standards that allow profiling of people who would rather remain unprofiled. SBHarris 01:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What I meant is that the criteria to have a bio here is getting harder, it may be that there are more bios because many failing the new criteria are slipping through the ropes but, eg, we didnt have BLP until reklatively recently and this a a trend I observe. As a side pouint there are IMO tens of thousands of notable people who dont have a bio here, mostly people notable in the Third World. I dont think the paper encyclopedia bit is even a starter but there is a core of good idea. Write an essay in the Wikipedia: space? SqueakBox 01:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll reframe and say wikipedia is about everything considered notable and sourceable, SqueakBox 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that isn't true! MicroSoft's ads for their latest software are notable and sourcable, but there's no rightful place for them on Wikipedia. I will note, of course, that "product user information" which is little indistinguishable from advertising can wind up on Wikipedia by indirect means, very much as political "press releases" (propaganda) wind up in your local paper, as "news". So there's an "ad creep" on Wikipedia, too. But one problem to be addressed at a time, and one nasty problem doesn't justify another. At least ad creap is by contrast less harmful to individuals than bio and notability creep. SBHarris 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a proposal may be controversial but I would encourage you to go for it but I think you need some other level of notability than a paper encyclopedia, SqueakBox 01:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a better suggestion. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a loose collection of information about the world and links to blogs, but if you go outside of other enclyclopedias and printed material which maintains restraint and accuracy by virtue of publishing costs, that's pretty much what you run into. Can't have it both ways.SBHarris 02:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we get to open this debate up hopefully other people will have better ideas than a paper encyclopedia, and opening this up is what I would encourage (and what you are doing), SqueakBox 02:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, SBHarris, and have already proposed it on the mailing list. Either a no-first-biography principle, or an opt-out  clause for borderline notables. There was a mixed response. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO a policy proposal on opting out possibility from having a bio for non-public figures would be a good idea, SqueakBox 01:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have good intentions, but the specifics you've proposed so far are impractical.  I have yet to hear a proposal that would actually make a useful deliniation and not end up with the same arguments we have right now.  It seems like you'd either leave out people who are public figures and should be in, or still end up having minor people who don't want to be mentioned here.  --Minderbinder 10:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You will absolutely never get consensus on allowing people to opt-out.  This has been discussed over and over and over.  It will never pass. We already have guidelines for notability, if you think they are too loose in particular respects those *specific* aspects should be taken up.  If someone puts themselves into the news because they are a media whore, then they are fair game.  End of story. :) Wjhonson 05:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each time it gets discussed it gets a little bit closer. One day we'll get there. Soon, I hope. Frise 06:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Editors often dig up 40-year-old information on people so they can add it to an article. Dropping out of sight for a while isn't going to cut it. Frise 06:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't feed the troll if you can help it. It's a very good proposal, sane and reasonable. Absolutely no hope of passing here then. Grace Note 05:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like good research. Infodmz 15:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one person did it, we'd call it stalking. Frise 21:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet another modest proposal

message: There is a minor discussion going on over at the talk page of the article Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder about the necessity to have the BLP Check tag on the page.  If a few more voices would like to come over and add their two cents so we can get a bigger picture of what the consenus here is, that'd be good.  72.69.111.117 00:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What constitutes a need for a BLP check? 

message: I am going to see him in his role as Mark Twain and wanted comments.  At his age is his performance as I hope -  Let me know what you think?   
Felix
:By all accounts he's still great. It's just that it only takes him 45 minutes to put on the makeup now, rather than the many hours it took when he did it first :) . SBHarris 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hal Holbrook