Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 10

message: A number of murder victims, such as people involved in 9/11 etc, are seen on AfD, and BLP1E is often used (and I use it too) when stating that just because the person was a victim, they are not inherently notable for anything else in their life. The thing is though, defense is usually thrown up that the biography is not of a (currently) living person, therefore BLP in it's entirety does not apply.
So what's the case here? BLP1E states If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. which is very true, yet the first line of BLP states Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Can BLP1E be used as a reason for AfD if the person is non notable besides ther death? Or should the WP:MEMORIAL be used instead? --Breno talk 13:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WOTTA? Phil Sandifer 13:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great response.  violet/riga (t) 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This policy applies only to the living.  While people here can argue and rant that it does or should apply to the dead as well it is clear that as it stands only living people are covered.  Citing BLP1E is therefore not correct, but the reasoning behind it can still apply.  violet/riga (t) 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks. --Breno talk 19:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Since deletion discussions are debates, you can raise whatever argument you like in them, whether they come from a policy page, an essay or whether you just made it up on the spot. Of course, sometimes an argument based on policy is going to be stronger than one that isn't, but most of the time it's actually a good thing to do as violet suggests and take existing ideas and build upon them. That's how policy is often created anyway. --bainer (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: When a person is famous only for the manner of their death, we probably want to consider heeding the advice of this policy to'cover the event, not the person.  Quite often we end up with a built-in fork because a murder is covered in two or more separate articles, one about the murderer and one about the victim.  It's always worth considering a merge in such instances.  The name of the article isn't that important, but giving it a name other than the name of the victim may sometimes be merited--especially if there is more than one victim. --Tony Sidaway 17:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP1E]] in AfD for murder victims 

message: Over at a certain arbitration case, I noticed Charles Matthews (one of the arbitrators) used an interesting Latin phrase in one of his comments. From De mortuis nil nisi bonum: "This expression is used in modern parlance with two nearly contradictory significances. In legal contexts, it refers to the principle of British, American, and other legal systems that defaming a deceased person is not actionable. In colloquial contexts, it indicates that it is socially inappropriate to say anything negative about a (recently) deceased person." - thought that explication might be relevant here, and worth some discussion if anyone wants to work out in which sense Wikipedia should apply this principle... (yes, the answer is "both"!) Carcharoth 12:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, though to clarify, I didn't mean that defaming a dead person is OK, just that there is (usually, unless there are living relatives) less repercussions. Carcharoth 12:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  From context , it's clear that Charles meant the colloquial sense.  In short, he doesn't think we should tread on eggshells over some dead miscreant.  To take an example, when Robert Maxwell died all kinds of muck came out, partly because during his lifetime he was so effective in using litigation and threats of litigation to silence journalists, partly because he himself was a major newspaper proprietor and could pull strings, and partly because he kept his financial malfeasance hidden during his lifetime.  Obviously we would not want to conceal the extremely damaging, but easily verifiable and highly significant information about his misdeeds.  --Tony Sidaway 13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin phrase (nil nisi bonum) 

message: I am working on an article which is a bio of a living person and about 50% of the information in the article is garnered from one single tabloid source.  This policy states that  “Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets”, emphasis on avoid.  This is a very weak position.  The Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not  policy is also weak.  It does not make any statement about tabloids such as “Wikipedia is not a tabloid.“.   I, along with a group of editors, have been trying to get the article I just mentioned revised and/or deleted but can not because of these two weak policies.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Period.  Do you think other encyclopedias like Britannica, Encarta, etc allow their writers/editors to utilize information found in tabloids?  Your weak policy is hurting Wikipedia and as long as articles like Margita Bangová which almost completely rely on tabloids like the Toronto Sun are allowed to withstand the editorial and deletion process because of your weak policy, then Wikipedia will never be a true encyclopedia.  I urge you all to revisit this issue and take a stronger position.  Not even my daughter’s first grade teacher would have allowed her to use a tabloid in any of her projects.  Why can’t Wikipedia, which proclaims to be an encyclopedia, have the same standards for our educated, adult editors? --Chicaneo 17:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you've got there is one or more POV pushers trying to turn it into a scandal article of a type only found in a particularly nasty kind of tabloid.  There is probably a real article in there somewhere.  The version I just reverted to looks like a good start. --Tony Sidaway 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What POV are we trying to push? —Psychonaut 17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia biographies of living persons are suitable for tabloids 

message: nothing he says is carved in stone, you don't need to quote him all the time, and you don't need to link to his specific words to make a point. that's pathetic. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.91.47 (talk • contribs) 
:He is signing the checks, though... --Jaysweet 20:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He isn't anymore, I don't think. -Amarkov moo! 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  psst.. jimmy wales isn't god. 

message: It would probably help if this section were clarified to help resolve a potential question. Specifically regarding situations where the subject's religious views have changed, but the subject had previously self-identified as an adherent of the belief system s/he has since abandoned. Does the policy, as currently written, specifically preclude mention or categorization as "former (religion X)" or not? As it is written, any reference to the subject's earlier religious beliefs could be challenged according to this phrasing. John Carter 20:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A particular problem might arise if an individual seemingly converts to another religion, possibly by becoming an active member of it, but never explicitly states that s/he has converted "from" the previous religion. I suppose in those instances, when the prior known religion of the party is known, it might be possible to categorize them as a "Convert to (whatever)" but not necessarily as a "Convert from (prior faith)". Does that sound reasonable? John Carter 22:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion section of this page 

message: Rationale
Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominence comes a measure of responsibility. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion and understanding. The Foundation and Jimbo Wales get well-founded complaints about biographical content on living people every day — people justifiably upset at inaccurate or distorted articles. The successful resolution of such complaints is a touchy matter.
The problem can be compounded if the subject tries to edit their own article to remove problematic content.  Since they are likely not regular Wikipedians, they will be unaware of our policies, and will often be accused of vandalism or revert warring when they are in fact trying to edit in good faith.
Accordingly, editors must take particular care with writing and editing biographies of living persons, and biographical material anywhere on Wikipedia, with the following practice in mind: 
* The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies;
* If the subject edits the article, it is important to assume good faith and deal with them politely (see Wikipedia:Autobiography for content decisions in this regard);
* If an anon IP address or a new account turns up to blank a page about a living person, or a section of it, it may well be the subject. Try not to act aggressively, but instead engage the person in dialogue, and check that the article in question does not contain any unsourced or poorly sourced criticism. If it does, delete that portion.
The rationale section has recently been cut down. Personally, I think it should stay more expanded. It gives a better summary of why BLP exists and better summary of how to do it before diving into detail in the rest of the document. Things like: "Accordingly, editors must take particular care with writing and editing biographies of living persons, and biographical material anywhere on Wikipedia, with the following practice in mind: The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies;" should be stated up front in the document. I really don't see major benefits of cutting the section down, and I think the additional text holds value in that section. BLP feels like processed food, and the more we work on it the more we lose sight on why we are doing the things we are doing (as in.. the rationale) -- Ned Scott 00:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this sounds wise. There is so much ambiguity surrounding this; detail is a good thing. Rebecca 09:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The introductory paragraph of this section is atrociously didactic. I'm certain words could be found to inform contributors of the policy and its rationale without lecturing them in such a pontifical way. Beneficientor
"<I>Wikipedia is a top-ten website.</I>" Cite? Top-ten of what? As determined by whom? 71.212.14.220 00:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale 

message: I find that I spend an inordinate amount of my time as an admin trying in vain to fix coatrack articles on Wikipedia. These are articles about people who are only notable for being related to a celebrity and virtually always consist of nothing but embarrassing incidents that are the fodder of tabloid (and these days, mainstream) newspaper articles. It is virtually impossible to keep these articles NPOV since the only things that are known about their lives are negative incidents that are supposedly embarrassing to whoever they are related to (for example, a relative of a politician who gets arrested for marijuana possession). Trying to delete these articles is never successful (as technically, they pass WP:N). Pointing editors to the BLP and NPOV policies seems to be equally ineffective. The editors always respond by saying "we're not being biased, we're just listing the facts". I can (and have) argued about how this violates the spirit of both NPOV and BLP until I'm blue in the face, but it is completely futile. The articles always revert back to the state of being coatracks. This problem can and does have significant effects on real people's lives (often people who are not notable enough to have a public forum to counter whatever bias we present here). Can we please add something concrete to this policy that will prevent the proliferation of this type of editing, i.e. articles becoming lists of well-sourced negative facts about people of borderline notability? Kaldari 16:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what about when there is, for instance, an article on a career criminal? There is no way to write such an article without referencing all their crimes, but that looks a lot like a coatrack article. BLP is simply too powerful to put things in it which have a potential for any reasonable misuse. -Amarkov moo! 16:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is completely different when the crimes are notable in and of themselves. For example, no matter how many speeding tickets I get, I'm never going to get an article in Wikipedia. The type of articles I'm talking about are basically lists of otherwise non-notable facts: public intoxication, speeding, marijuana possession, love trists, etc. Incidents that are only notable because they embarrass someone famous (by association). Kaldari 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't a new phenomenon.  Look at Billy Carter. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article about Bill Carter shows that he had a significant public profile on his own behalf.  His activities with respect to the government of Libya were investigated by a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Billy Carter-Libya Investigation) . --Tony Sidaway 16:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This policy already does address coatracks, and several coatracks have been successfully wiped out under this policy.  If you've been having problems dealing with coatracks, I can help and advise. --Tony Sidaway 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to my masochistic nature I've been trying to patrol the relatives-of-politicians articles (both Democrat and Republican). I'm usually successful at moderating the strong POV-tendancies that these articles attract, but not without significant and sustained effort where I end up having to repeat the same debates over and over and over again. The article that I'm having trouble with this week is Al Gore III. This article is especially problematic since Al Gore III is not a public figure (he has no involvement in politics himself) and he seems to enjoy speeding and smoking weed (at least according to most news sources). The point I especially have a problem with is that editors keep reinserting information about Gore III being suspended from school for smoking weed at a school dance when he was 13. To me, this is a very obvious violation of Gore III's privacy, and has no place in an encyclopedia article. Every time I explain this, however, I am shouted down by accusations of "whitewashing" and "political censorship" and the editors insist that it should be included in the article (along with ever other arrest or infraction ever committed by Gore III) because it is well-sourced (having been mentioned in a book about Al Gore). What can I do to stop these kind of edits without having to argue until I'm blue in the face every time??? Kaldari 17:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just remember that in many cases it'd preferable to move and rewrite, rather than simply delete, such as people known for single events. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:PSEUDO. I think this is relevant. Waltontalk 16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PSEUDO, Wikipedia:Avoiding harm, and Wikipedia:Coatrack are all relevant, but none of them are policy. We need specific policy on this, not just vague guidelines and essays. Indeed, I think the reason those pages have appeared is due to the lack of specific policy on this issue. Kaldari 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I hope for WP:HARM to be upgraded to an official guideline, although it probably needs some tweaking first. Feel free to make changes or discuss at WT:HARM. Waltontalk 14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Time and again I see criminal issues pop up at WP:BLPN and find them elsewhere. I really think we need at least a guideline or page on how BLP articles should handle BLP crime issues, specifically arrest, trial, accusations, convictions, age of convictions, crime victims, etc. WT:HARM is nice, but I think we need something like WP:BLP CRIME. A recent issue I came across is the Misuse of Infobox criminal to give undue weight to a person's crime and thus raise potential BLP and NPOV issues. I posted a thread on this at Admin Noticeboard: Misuse of Infobox criminal in this regard. There seems to be many ways to give too much weight to a person's criminal involvement and I think if we had some specific BLP guidance to turn on criminal matters, we could all get on the same page faster. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This policy needs to address coatrack articles 

message: An editor has now twice inserted the  template onto Fox News Channel controversies talk page with the explaination "adding  tag since living persons are involved".  I don't really follow his logic, since the template is specifically for biographies and the article isn't about a person at all.  If we use his logic, we can extend this to any article that mentions a living person.  I think that's a pretty far leap... what do you guys think?  /Blaxthos 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP template on non-biographical articles 

message: If the subject of the article requests deletion, is it done provided the requester is indeed that person? VoltronForce 06:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most often not, even if they propose the article for deletion on WP:AFD. This is then argued there and there is generally no agreement. Some argue for retention on the grounds that the person is notable. Others argue for deletion if the person is only marginally notable. Of course the article is deleted if the person is not notable, but that is the case who ever proposes the deletion. --Bduke 06:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion by request 

message: Geni, why are you switching the policy tag to policy2?  Why is it better to not say editors should only edit the page in ways that reflect consensus?  For that matter, why does the policy2 template exist?  --Allen 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well first rather a lot of this policy appears to come from arbcom and random jimbo statements rather than consensus and second we have no idea how widely this page is accepted by the community.Geni 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has very wide acceptance in my experience of dealing with editors who want to see it applied. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: err yes that is to be expected. I mean generaly those who wish to see a policy aplied tend to support it one some level.Geni 19:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, that sentence is a good example of the importance of the comma. I meant to write: "... in my experience of dealing with editors, who want to see it applied." :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why policy -> policy2? 

message: Yesterday, I flagged this archived version of an article for speedy deletion as an attack page based on my interpretation of WP:BLP. The article contains a series of serious allegations - either direct ("disgraced town supervisor", "rife with allegations of corruption") or by association ("his office was accused of covering up the disappearence of over one million dollars", he "refused to [resign] although the School Superintendent eventually fled to Arizona") - without any balancing material whatsoever. I was unable to access the sources for verification: the first, in a 1995 edition of New York Times, is now available by subscription only; the second points only to a general archive of the Buffalo News, which does not appear to contain the cited article. I have therefore no idea how closely the article reflects editorial coverage or if it reflects it at all.
I should add that the subject of the article is still active in local politics, is clearly still highly respected (in some quarters at least) as he is chairman of the town's chamber of commerce, president of his local temple, and a board member of the township's land trust. He appears to be a lawyer by profession. 
Now, the writer of the article stubbed it later on yesterday but these allegations remain in the history. Also, an admin detagged it saying remove invalid speedy tag; not an attack page. What is the position? Is it an attack page or not? Should future similar instances be ignored? If so, it seems to me that WP:BLP needs toning down.
ROGER TALK 07:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the crucial issue in this case is the specific wording of criterion G10 of the speedy deletion criteria. Namely, a page is only speedy-able per G10 when there is no NPOV version to revert to. In this case, the article could have been reverted to this version and trimmed as necessary. In its trimmed state, the article has issues with notability and may be a good candidate for proposed deletion, but that's a matter that is best considered separately from BLP issues. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very helpful observation, thank you. (And, yes, notabiity is best dealt with separately.) ROGER TALK 07:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. :) Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 07:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is an ''attack page''? 

message: WP:HARM has been proposed as a formal guideline. Feel free to edit the proposal as needed, or discuss on the talk page. Waltontalk 11:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:HARM]] proposed as guideline 

message: As a rather well known LP myself, I have a question: since I know my own career and it appears that published sources don't, can I alter what is written without having to source it? Michael Howard MP, former British Home Secretary. PS sorry about the name, it is an internal parliamentary nickname with the profanity changed to something more suitable for use as an online handle. Owlperson 20:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that, no, you can't alter the article without sourcing, as the verifiability policy says, what counts is "verifiability, not truth" - even though you might know something to be so, unless it's recorded by a reputable source then it can't go in. Of course, though we like our verifiable sources to be online, just out of laziness, it's not strictly necessary; in your case, surely there must be a lot of references to your activities in Hansard from before the time it started appearing online? I would also caution you to be careful of the conflict of interest guidelines (I'm a little surprised no-one's thrown that one at you already!) and note the advice in the autobiography guidelines (it's OK to remove incorrect information about yourself, but be careful about introducing new material about yourself - it would be better if you could get someone else to do it for you). I notice elsewhere you asked about how to get an acceptable photo of yourself in the article - the easiest way would be for you to upload a photo of yourself with the photographers' agreement to release it under the GFDL licence or one of the Creative Commons licences (these are selected from a drop-down menu when you upload a picture). Finally, I'd just like to say welcome to Wikipedia, your presence is appreciated (even though I'd never vote for your party!) - you couldn't persuade your recently-retired former opposite number to join too, could you? :) -- Arwel (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Verifiability is tied to reliability.  If there are incorrect statements from sources we normally regard as reliable, please let us know in email (info-en@wikipedia.org) and we'll do our best to fix the problem.  For instance if a biographer has made an error and we've propagated the error from the biography we should treat it as any publisher would treat errata.  Of course there is a limit to what we can do, there.  Where there was a dispute over whether a single source was in error, we'd regard the single source as unreliable or of unknown reliability on that subject, but where the dispute was over several apparently independent, apparently reputable, sources, it might be difficult to write them all off as unreliable.  --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've contacted Michael Howard's office, who confirm that Owlperson is a hoaxer, whom I've indef blocked. Tyrenius 13:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can subject alter his bio without having to source it? 

message: Yeah, this is probably stupid. But, considering that several companies which use a living animal in advertising and such. Considering the threats of lawsuits were we to add content to articles about these animals ("Morris the cat's mess of kittens", depicting him as a unusually libidinous and irresponsible animal, for example), would it make sense to extend BLP to living animals as well? John Carter 17:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was brought up in a recent AfD about a dead goat... :-) Waltontalk 10:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to see how one could libel a cat. There is the issue of product/trademark disparagement (remember Oprah and beef producers; if not, see Oprah#Rankings_as_world.27s_most_influential_woman?) not sure if that's really a BLP issue though. Carlossuarez46 18:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad example. Not thinking so much of the trademark, as maybe disparaging the specific animal involved. Maybe "Moonie's mess of puppies" would be a better example. But some of the animals used for publicity for various zoos and some of the pets of famous people (like Spot Fetcher) could be subject to inaccurate statements. And in some of those cases, like Su Lin, the info might be included to disparage the entity they're associated with, in this case the San Diego Zoo, who might not specifically qualify under BLP as a group, not a person. I hope the situation never arises, but weirder things have happened. John Carter 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "Persons" 

message: Somehow during the editing of this page a few days ago, an IP removed contentious from the opening section , which changes the meaning and makes the opening inconsistent with the detailed formulation below.  I've re-inserted this.   semper fictilis 16:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "contentious" 

message: The addition has now been removed. I am again proposing the addition at the end of WP:BLP#Categories:
:Similar care should be applied when including people in lists. The same criteria apply as in categories for religious beliefs and sexual preference.
Lists are not the same as articles. They are more akin to categories and need certainty for inclusion. Tyrenius 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see an explanation per se. Lists are comparable to articles in that they are articles, but inclusion is still a statement in Wikipedia's voice. You haven't actually responded to the concerns with that aspect raised above. Hornplease 01:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reiteration

message: I've restored that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material should be removed. Michael changed it to "unsourceable" i.e. OR. But it's not only OR that should be removed, but anything that is contentious and unsourced. If people want to find a reliable source, that's fine, of course, and then it won't be unsourced or poorly sourced, and this provision won't apply. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I didn't notice that. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh! I missed that too. It shouldn't matter whether derogatory material is sourceable or not; if it's unsourced, it can be removed without discussion. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to emphasize "fix or delete" why not complete the thought with "and should not be restored unless reliable sources are found and cited" or words to that effect.  The "don't restore" could stand to be emphasised too... WilyD 18:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Restoring the material is subject to the same policies as adding it in the first place. The focus of the section is on dealing with material that's already there but not in compliance with policy. --Michael Snow 18:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this makes clear the "fixing in an option" point. WilyD 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In all honesty, Michael, I think the first thing to do is remove.  "Fix or remove" is fine too, but we don't need to reword our policies to say it's okay to source a poorly sourced statement if you happen to have a source. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The concern, I think, is that the option of fixing is not even being considered. I agree that removing is better than waiting around for a fix, which is why I added the comment that tags like  aren't appropriate. --Michael Snow 18:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The option of fixing is implicit in Wikipedia's status as a wiki.  This policy does not say and has never said, nor is it capable of being read as saying, that providing a reliable source for an unsourced statement is forbidden.  That would be very silly. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not claiming the policy says any such thing, the issue is whether people carrying out the policy are adequately considering the option. Omitting it from discussion leaves an emphasis, as The Cunctator puts it, "that encourages non-collaborative behavior and rewards assumptions of bad faith." --Michael Snow 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I share Michael's concern, though I don't wholly agree with the text of his changes. The option of fixing may be "implicit", but there's no harm to making it explicit. The policy, as worded, seems to actively discourage any action except removal. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I asked above (and haven't received much of an answer yet), I would love to hear in what way the text of my changes could be improved. --Michael Snow 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mainly disagree with the second paragraph as I think it places too much emphasis on potential attributability as opposed to present source status. Specifically, I do not agree with the wording of this sentence: When in doubt, derogatory material that is not properly sourceable should be removed. First, I believe "derogatory" should be changed to "contentious". Second, I think "sourceable" should be changed to "sourced". I hope that clarifies my comment. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that helps a lot. I hadn't done much with The Cunctator's second paragraph before now, but on review I'm sure it can be tightened up and improved further. I definitely agree with the second point, the first is perhaps less critical but "contentious" is a good default adjective throughout. --Michael Snow 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Good catch, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing unsourced material 

message: There's been an ongoing discussion for some time now in Talk:George W. Bush substance abuse controversy regarding the question of whether to include a mention of an article that appeared in the National Enquirer, which cited unidentified "family sources" as saying that Bush had been drinking in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. After being one of those who originally raised the question of whether a mention of the item belongs in the Wikipedia article, I ended up coming to the conclusion that it probably does. Another editor has recently been asserting that it doesn't, and has removed it, citing WP:BLP. I think this might constitute an interesting edge case, in the sense that if we're going to have an article on this topic at all, a neutrally-presented mention of the Enquirer article might qualify for inclusion, despite the dictates of WP:BLP. The other editor has characterized it as much more cut-and-dried, asserting that WP:BLP clearly doesn't allow for mentioning the Enquirer article.
I wanted to take a step back from the issue, so I haven't continued the low-grade revert conflict that we'd fallen into. But I'm concerned that in its current state the article might not be doing justice to the topic, or to the requirements of NPOV, and I would feel better if some folks with a background in WP:BLP could take a look at the question. Thanks. -- John Callender 05:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the National Enquirer the only source reporting on these unidentified "family sources"? If that is the case, I would argue for the exercise of caution in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: After reading the article, it seems to me to be a bad case of WP:POVFORK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Should be merged back into the main article. Carcharoth 12:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The National Enquirer is not a reliable source.  I've heard arguments that suggest otherwise here at Wikipedia, but I disagree.  The National Enquirer is a tabloid; it is not a reliable source, and to repeat anything the Enquirer said is to toss out any standard of reliability.  Tabloid crap doesn't belong in Wikipedia. (And no, I'm not a Republican or a Bush supporter). -Jmh123 15:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. By  "merge back into the main article", I meant that the "substance abuse controversy" shouldn't have been allowed to grow to the extent where it needed its own article. Part of the merging would involve editing the content right down until only a paragraph appears in the main article. The National Enquirer stuff would be one of the first things to go. Carcharoth 15:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about removal of a National Enquirer article 

message: I think the BLP guidelines ought to spell out that they apply globally.  In my wikignoming activities, I often see casual accusations of involvement in terrorism, drug-smuggling, or opposition politics, made without any proper source at all. 
Wikipedia is available globally, perhaps even to secret policemen and their death squads. Casual accusations of this kind   - and false positives, where information about several people is accidentally conflated into a single article - can lead to beatings, imprisonment, torture or death. How do we deal with this? --ROGER TALK 08:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harm is global 

message: *Recognize the different situation with regards to sources for historical people (by which I mean those that lived before the 20th century when there were less sources reporting on people and less of those sources have survived). Some of these have incomplete biographies, but that is due to lack of sources, rather than private living individuals not being reported on or not publicizing their information. (Carcharoth 10:27, 14 July 2007)
:*Historical people – I agree, with two comments. First, historical people are not covered under BLP. Second, I think this should also extend to notable people who were born or live outside of the United States. There is generally little information available about them, so amassing a complete biography that includes details about childhood, education, employment, marriage, and retirement is generally not possible. (Black Falcon (Talk) 15:30, 14 July 2007)
Is the suggestion here really that American-resident living people should have one standard of completeness and every other living person the much lower standard as dead historical people? --ROGER TALK 07:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, yes. But notability comes first. It is OK to have an incomplete article about a notable person, but not OK to flesh it out with non-notable stuff. That probably didn't come across as well as it should have done. I'll try again later. Carcharoth 11:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. My reactions? Firstly, in my experience, the bar for notability is set ridiculously low. Secondly, why do American-resident  people require a different standard to people living in, for example, Australia or Canada or New Zealand, or the European Union?  --ROGER TALK 12:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he meant places where there are not extensive internet records, but people have to look in printed books instead... Carcharoth 13:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification please 

message: I've recently noticed a few disputes arising from edits to BLPs made by people who've been involved in litigation, or some other real-life conflict, with the subject. One party arrives at Wikipedia to add details of the dispute to the other party's BLP. It almost always leads to trouble for various reasons e.g. because they want to use primary sources such as trial transcripts, or they want to highlight certain areas not highlighted by secondary sources, and so on. If they're prevented from adding the material to the article, they engage in protacted discussion on the talk page, which invariably involves posting the disputed material in full to make sure it's picked up by Google. I'd therefore like to add a conflict of interest subsection to the "Preventing BLP violations" section:
Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common sense in action. It's already pretty much implied by the intersection of COI and BLP. We wish to precluse the appropriation of the talk page, which is only a click away (and a likely click for readers as well as editors, as it's entitled "discussion",) as a the very vehicle hostile-COI editors are denied in mainspace ([remember Gordon James Klingenschmitt?)Proabivouac 01:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's an interesting proposal. However, and don't take this the wrong way, the impression I get is that you are trying to build a general case from a specific case, so that it can be applied to a specific case. Policy shouldn't be tailored to fit specific cases. There is also too much self-reference going on here. No need to say "off-wiki" and "real-life" in a general policy like this - it comes across as very insular. Also, too many abbreviations - the acronym BLP is used excessively and comes across as jargon. If this was all re-worded to sound less like "some people are fighting on-wiki, let's put something in this policy so we can shout at them to stop", then it might be better. And anyway, don't existing policies and guidelines already have clauses against this sort of behaviour? This proposal also comes across as proscriptive ("do this") rather than descriptive ("this is what we do"). Carcharoth 01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:COI has a page. -- Ned Scott 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This last point is very salient.  This is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, not Wikipedia:all policies rolled into one.  COI is probably a better place to discuss how to handle conflicts of interest. WilyD 03:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest 

message: Add a section addressing a FAQ: e.g., there is an article about Dan Jacobson. But I am also named Dan Jacobson, but he is a somebody, and I am a nobody. What should I do about the situation, if anything? Jidanni 15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing, for now.  If you become famous, then we can add a disambiguation page.  :)  --Jaysweet 15:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous people with my name 

message: Biographies include the exact date the LP was born.  In the USA, one's birthdate is an important part of establishing identity.  Identity theft is much easier when the birthdate of the target person is known.  Many times, a person's social security number is accidentally revealed, but that alone is not enough to easily steal their identity.  The other key piece of information is the person's birthdate.  
Every person with a biography in Wikipedia is especially vulnerable to identity theft.  Please allow and encourage only the year of birth, and not the date in articles.  The month and day are not necessary for a biography.  
I qualify to have a biography in Wikipedia (written by someone else, of course), but I refuse.  I understand that there would be pressure to discover my birthdate an insert it into the biography.  --TK
:I think this is a really weird guideline.  You have to be mentioned in other published sources to be notable enough to be in wikipedia.  If your birthdate is published elsewhere, it can make no difference to anything if it is also published in wikipedia.  If it is not possible to find it out elsewhere, how the heck would it ever get into the wikipedia article?  In my experience, people who don't want their birthdates known are more sensitive about the year they were born than they are about the actual date. Deb 18:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy of birth dates 

message: There's an article about me Michael Kay (software engineer) that's classified as a stub. I think it's reasonable for the article to exist, because there are a number of links to it, some of which predated the article. But I think it says all about me that an encyclopedia needs to say - I'm not really important enough to justify more. I don't see anything in the policies that says the amount of information published about someone should be proportionate to their importance, and the assessment of articles as stubs doesn't seem to take this factor into account. 
In any case, I'm in a quandary. I don't want the article to remain tagged as a stub, and I don't think it's a good idea for me as the subject to take responsibility for fixing it. Mhkay 08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Might stubs sometimes be appropriate? 

message: This policy does not specifically deal with scandals of living persons. (Things like Bill Clinton's sex scandals) So, I'm asking, are there any guidelines on the inclusion of a living person's scandals on his article?--Kylohk 07:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On widely reported scandals of living persons 

message: My attempt to insert the following principle approved by the arbcom by a vote of 11-0 was reverted:
Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
The edit summary states that it is "excess/redundant text."  However, there is nothing in the current policy which says that articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage.  There is nothing in the current policy regarding those who are notable for being victims.  And there is nothing in the current policy prohibiting editors from participating in or prolonging such victimization. 
As this is an official ruling of the arbcom which they consider to be "implicit" in the policy even though any logician would be hard-pressed to show how to derive such an implication from the existing text, it is obviously essential that people referring to this policy see what the arbcom has decreed it prohibits.  Therefore, I am replacing the text. ←BenB4 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic human dignity 

message: I've seen issues with this come up in several different contexts.  As currently written, the policy says that the only self-published material that can be referenced in John's article is material that John himself published.  This sometimes leads to some rather strange limitations.
As a hypothetical example.  Suppose John and Ted are in business together.  Ted makes uncontroversial statements about the business on his blog, but as currently constructed BLP prevents such statements from being referenced in John's article.  Or perhaps a slightly more risque example.  John and Ted have a publicly notable dispute (think candidates for political office), someone includes references to a press release issued by John, but in an article on John we couldn't include any reference to the press release issued by Ted, and hence coverage of the dispute can end up being one sided.
I'd like some suggestions on addressing this.  One of the things worth discussing, in my opinion, is the degree to which the BLP privledge lies with "biography pages" versus "biographical information".  Specifically, a rule that only John can self-publish material that can be included on John's biography "page" is different from saying only that only John can self-publish material about John.  In particular, if Ted is discussed in John's biography, then it seems natural that self-published material by Ted can be used to describe Ted.
Do others agree with that?  That BLP should apply principally to the kind of information being included and not to the specific context?  Dragons flight 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sefl-published sources limitation 

message: I just removed the name of Amy Smart's parents.  It's quite a common thing to have the names of parents in articles but I would argue that it goes against policy to include them - it doesn't add anything to the article unless that person is notable themselves.  There may be other cases where it might be worth noting details about them, such as the rags to riches stories.  violet/riga (t) 21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my, I hope this isn't policy now. Do we have to take out the parents names in Katie Holmes, for example? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my interpretation of where we're going with things.  I've brought it here because I can't really decide myself if it's the right thing to do or not.  I can see both sides of the argument at the moment, so it'll be interesting to discuss it.  violet/riga (t) 22:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it would only be an issue if a situation was negative or where undue weight of a single event becomes a factor. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.
As this stands I don't see anything about "negative or undue weight", so it suggests that we should remove them all.  Rightly or wrongly.  violet/riga (t) 10:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't be comfortable with that. I suggest clarifying the policy instead. -- Ned Scott 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parents 

message: I'm trying to find out what best practice is in a case of someone notable for one event only, where the policy advises that we cover the event, not the person. I'm dealing with a case where the person's name has been created as a redirect to the article about the event. So far as I know, this creates the same Google problem as would a BLP about that person. Is best practice that the redirect be deleted? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is decided that we have the name in the article itself then a redirect would be sensible.  Google will pick up the name in the article but not give it quite as high priority as an article title (including redirects).  This won't make much difference if the name doesn't get many hits.  More importantly by typing that name into our internal search engine it will appear as the top entry in the search and just lead to a further click.  violet/riga (t) 08:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query about redirects regarding a person notable only for one event 

message: "living persons" This should be changed, it suject that anything made up about the non-living is fine, There has been a problem occurring time and time again on the biography of J. Howard Marshall who is no longer living, there has been {an} editor(s) slandering him by suggesting that "he sponsored Nazi causes" without any reliable sources, :WP:BLP should be for the living as well as the dead.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles for deceased persons are still covered by the policies on neutrality, verifiability, and original research, and the reliable sources guideline. If the statement in the J. Howard Marshall article is not supported by reliable sources, it may be removed even without BLP. This proposal (to expand the scope of BLP) has been suggested many times (see the talk page archives) and routinely rejected. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Black Falcon. BLP draws from all the other guidelines and policies, and adds a sense of urgency, and some penalties. But the underlying policies still apply. - Crockspot 17:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies of living persons 

message: I've noted an extremely frequent albeit inconsistent habit by writers of referring to their subjects by first name.  This is especially common in articles about people in the arts and popular culture. This habit instantly lends an unprofessional and pov quality to the articles, and can lead a reader to wonder if the article were simply copied and pasted from promo materials for the artist. It can be tedious as hell for other people to have to change all those first names to last names.  If there's a consensus on this, perhaps it should be addressed here in the section on writing style.  Bacrito 14:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you've described is one of my pet peeves. "After graduating, Alex went on to ..." ... argh! Since this is mostly a style issue, already covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names, I'm not sure it's necessary to mention in the BLP policy, which is primarily about content. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of subject's first name 

message: As worded this section calls for those on the reciveing end of the soviet show trial to be placed in cat criminals. This be the case I see little point in lengthening the page further with flawed examples.Geni 22:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat criminals 

message: By this argument, anyone's biography on Wikipedia could claim that they were British Lords, or heirs to the French crown, or recipients of the Nobel Prize, in spite of a lack of evidence to confirm any such wild claim, made by the subect himself or herself, or by a second party.
Clearly, this is not helpful. I believe that noting that the individual at question is not listed on an official document is not WP:OR, and it is not WP:POV. It is just a plain bland fact. For example, "person X is not listed as an heir to the French Crown on a list published by Y. Person Z does not appear on the list of Nobel Laureates on the official list published at W, although person Z claims to have a Nobel Prize." These statements do not make the leap of inference to say that person Z or person X lied or their information was misrepresented intentionally by someone. That is left to the reader. The inconsistency is noted, and that is all. No speculation as to the reason for this are presented, since that might be OR. For example, stating in an article that the reason for this inconsistency is some given reason, such as:
*lying
*delusion
*typographic error
*mistake
*confusion
*cheating
and so on, is probably verging into OR and might violate the rules of WP:BLP. Do I understand this correctly?--Filll 14:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By stating as much, we're strongly implying that it's not true. Someone else (a reliable source) needs to have written about the person not appearing on the list, or it's original research. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of listed affiliation is not evidence that the person is not affiliated? 

message: The bot seems to have blanked the whole current talk page; I restored it in an earlier edit; see editing history of talk page. --NYScholar 09:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving error? 

message: ...in case anyone complains, I think they're great and improve the logic and clarity of the page.
BTW, any more opinions on WillyD's proposed language to amend the page in reference to external links?  We've got three people on board so far I think.  It gets a little buried but the proposal is here.  Wikidemo 21:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's edits by Geni and Blackfalcon