Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 17

I think this actually adds a lot to the policy. Often people think BLP is about not getting sued. In fact, while it's a consideration, our primary concern as I'm pretty sure the policy notes is that we should try to avoid causing unnecessary and unacceptable harm to living people by allowing claims to be made and information to be spread, whether on articles or talk pages that are poorly sourced. As the policy notes, we are also expected to respect the privacy of individuals whenever resonably possible. This means we should not include certain 'facts' in some case even if they are covered in primary sources. N.B. #Voluntary public figures vs. involuntary public figures which I only saw after writing this adds a lot to this discussion IMHO. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

True. There is a possible problem with the phrasing however. Hypothetical example. Let's say that the son of

JFK if he were to continue behaving in what they saw as counterproductive behavior. Let's go on to say that they only had one half-hour meeting, four days before the assassination, and that they agreed to meet later, but never did because of the assassination. Let's say that the released findings even indicated that there was no possibility whatsoever that Korth were involved in the assassination. Would his son's political career be toast anyway? Probably. Would that qualify as "doing harm"? Possibly, and certainly the existing phrasing could be seen as perhaps indicating that, on the basis of the above, we couldn't include such information, even though the two most relevant parties have been dead for at least ten years. In fact, some weirdos out there with a huge conspiracy fixation might even potentially try to kill the son on the basis of his father's attending that one meeting. Just how far does "no harm" go? Does it include information such as the above scenario which might deal at best periperally with living people? And does inclusion of, in this assumed case, information from neutral, reliable, verifiable, sources which might cast a negative light on certain living people by extension, qualify? John Carter (talk

) 18:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say "marginal", it says "ambiguous". The two words don't mean the same thing. The criterion was misused on that DRV, I believe, due to someone not understanding the difference.

☎

16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct. I feel a little hoodwinked here; ambiguity is a must clearer standard and I withdraw my request. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Criticism section states "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability" and "header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability." The Well known public figures section states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article". What I'm running into is that any news published by a reliable source is "notable" but is barely relevant and certainly not important to the subject's notability. Criticism sections get overrun with headers of the latest criticism, creating issues with unbalanced article structure and overall undue weight. NPOV requires balance in each criticism so each section gets expanded to a point where a good portion of the article is just addressing the latest news story. Editors point to the BLP policy and say that it is notable since it is in the news. Are these policies in conflict? I'm fine with including such criticism but it seems that something notable but not part of the subject's notability should be summarized and given appropriate weight for the overall biography. However, the conflict in policy makes this difficult in addressing the dispute. Morphh ^(talk) 16:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the two standards have a different scope, and thus aren't in conflict. The former standard deals with when "the views of critics" should be included (e.g., "Editorials/critics/etc have accused [subject] of..."). The latter standard deals with when an "allegation or incident" should be included (e.g., "On December 12th, [subject] did XYZ..."). Also, if there IS a conflict (I don't see one), note that the latter standard is limited to a smaller population of living people: well-known public figures -- it might make sense to have a slightly different policy for well-known public figures who are antecedently notable. Consider: certainly there has been notable, standard, and relevant lines of criticism of, say, the President. But does that criticism "contribute to his notability"? Probably not. There don't seem to be BLP issues with including it, however. Fireplace (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The second statement of article headers should still apply, which is from the NPOV policy. If we create a header for each notable criticims, it creates issues with article structure and NPOV. The headers in a biography should outline the important areas to a subject's notability. This falls back to issues with a {{

Criticism-section}}. I can agree that we include the material based on NPOV weight and NPOV article structure. This may limit the amount of attention you give to any particular "notable" subject in relation to the biography of the person. Not saying to exclude it, but a brief summary of the news may be more appropriate than a paragraph and a header defining it as some major area. So perhaps you're correct that they do not conflict, but the attention and weight you give to an allegation or incident should based on the relevance to the subject's notability. We should look at the entire life of the person, perhaps from a historical viewpoint, and provide proper weight and sturcture for the biography. Morphh ^(talk)

14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Moved to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Michael Ledwith UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that the Angela Beesley DRV is closed, I have a question. Using her as an example, she's nearly notable enough for a simple keep on any AfD. However, what happens in 6 months or 2 years, when news media and sources surrounding her and her keep growing, to the point where notability is assured and not borderline? Will a DRV simply be ran to overturn the previous results, and the article is back again? In the case of "courtesy deletions" I presume that means people who either aren't completely notable, or are borderline by our standards, correct? Such a thing wouldn't be extended to, say, a United States politician, actor, or prominent businessman? Lawrence Cohen 04:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that section of BLP has gotten the Angela Beesley article deleted. I've reverted the inappropriate speedy close of the DRV. Whether people like it or not, the community will have to deal with these issues one way or another. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've similarly changed my statement on the DRV until I get answers on this. In hindsight, deleting Beesley's article seems like a waste of time. Is she stopping any public roles for her corporate work? Will she stop speaking with news media and be a private person? If not, we'll have an ever-growing pool of sources and upwardly trickling notability. The article will be remade, because sources will keep coming. What is the threshold of how notable you are before you don't get to ask out? Lawrence Cohen 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Was there any feedback on this? Is

You might consider crossposting this to

WP:AN and maybe Wiken-L for comments. Mercury

18:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll do that. Lawrence Cohen 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that an administrator considering applying this rule needs to sort the AFD opinions into two categories (some will be in both): first - those opining on notability; second - those opining on whether or not this clause should actually be applied. The first is more important, because if there is a clear consensus that the subject is notable, the clause does not apply on its explicit terms. The second is mostly hot air of little to no substance, because the administrator is supposed to apply their discretion. However, many opinions will be in both - in that AFD for example there were opinions that said she was both not notable and the clause should be exercised, others such as my own that said she was notable and that the clause should not be exercised, and still others that said she was of limited notability and the clause should be exercised. These three types all contained a comment on notability, and that part of these opinions belonged in the first category.

Yes or no, to start?

I suppose it just boils down to the straight question first: "Can someone reach a point of notability that they shouldn't be able to opt out of Wikipedia?" Yes, no, to start, and build from that once that question in and of itself is sorted out. The level can be figured out later. Can that condition exist, though, where someone is just too notable? Lawrence Cohen 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. George W. Bush should probably not be able to opt out of Wikipedia. JavaTenor (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I believe Ratzinger was already cited. but I do not think that this is the question at issue. I dont think anyone would disagree with this part of it. the question at issue is whether the policy should be changed so that requests based the subjects preference in cases of alleged marginal notability are no longer accepted, and out policy return to notable vs. nonnotable. (with the appropriate special cases in the rest of BLP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

BLP Noticeboard#BLP subject ambiguity. Worth noting in BLP or adding to relevant templates page? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am having a debate with a group of authors who maintain fraternity articles. Talk:Sigma Alpha Mu They are arguing that if a fraternity publishes a list of living people who they claim are members, we should accept this as a primary source and proceed to associate these living people with that fraternity. They have opened and RFC on the matter anyone interested in weighing in on the discussion it would be useful. Alan.ca (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pandon me if I'm being rude, but with popular articles (particularly those of celebrities and such), how the hell should one go about adding rumoured information if EVERYTHING rumored is deleted? I'm referring specifically to the talk page on Cassie, which has so many deletion tags that the page cannot even be read properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian-sama (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 December 2007

Depends on what you mean by rumoured. The policy says: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia. If rumoured = "I heard it somewhere, I'm not sure where", take it somewhere else; we don't want it. If rumoured = the New York Times and the LA Times both say "there is a rumor", explicitly cite the articles as sources, preferably with links, and be prepared to argue, on the talk page, that the reports constitute a significant proportion of coverage and are themselves significant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My problem is that the "I heard it somewhere" rumors can't even be brought up on a talk page without apparently being attacked and deleted. What's funny is that, with proper discussion, they could otherwise be fleshed out, proven, and placed on the page. The talk page in question had an "I heard it somewhere" rumor that turned out to be true (Diddy or whatever his name is dating Cassie), but it was so zealously deleted that the page doesn't even have the information. Ian-sama (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Errol Louis as User:ErrolLouis believes that the Shankbone picture of him is disparaging, and wishes it replaced by a different image. I see no reason why this should be an issue, even if the supplied image may be of lesser technical quality, as it is affecting a living person. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Anything which could cause harm to a living person is covered by the BLP policy. -Amarkov moo! 05:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP states that material must be verified, neutral, ant not OR. The image provided was not really a BLP issue. But IMO this is a matter of courtesy (and therefore an editorial decision, not a policy one). -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Does BLP apply - yes. Is BLP the right tool for handling this particular pair of images - no. Editorial discretion is better. The newer image, being black and white, is superior for some uses and inferior for others. If the subject prefers one, and there are not strong editorial reasons to choose one or another, go with the one the subject prefers.

GRBerry

14:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A poor GFDL image often prompts someone to submit a good GFDL image of themselves (or their agent does it for them) - this is why it is better to have a poor GFDL image than a decent fair use one.

☎

16:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And I point out that the article now has a very nice GFDL image supplied by Mr. Louis. Which is what we intend to have happen in these circumstances.

pretty much. If people don't like an image (as long as the image actualy is of them) they can provide a better one.Geni 10:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that addition because it's too vague and ambiguous. The specific case in point could have been handled by other means, e.g. BLP and/or copyvio, since that image is controversial and not published by a high quality reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

eh? was this a reply to something? --Fredrick day (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mcrazychick&diff=178618986&oldid=17860080 says Revision as of 00:54, 18 December 2007 (edit) (undo) Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) ("there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute"). I thought it would make a good addition here even though it is already at

Wikipedia:User page

. Maybe others agree with me; or maybe we should add

See also

Wikipedia:User page

.

to that paragraph if people think it makes a better guideline than policy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A broad agreement need not be policy – see

Gracenotes^T

§ 04:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it might be worth, I copied the text of the policy to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Draft by SSBohio and did a fair bit of editin, mostly to make the policy more focused and declarative, but also to address some of the implementation issues I've seen. Please feel free to take from it anything that may be a useful edit to the policy. I'm happy to answer questions about it as well, although sometimes I look back at my own writing and wonder what I was thinking. --SSBohio 21:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved here from

I am in mediation with someone regarding the policies of ‘Biographies of Living Persons’ (one of many issues). The rules are very clear about how extreme care must be given to in writing biographies of living people. I believe the spirit of this policy is to prevent the possibility of libelous lawsuits against Wikipedia. Can this policy be extended to cover active operating companies and on-the-market company products that are compared with each other on a Wiki page (they may not wish this), or is there another policy that covers such issues? There is also the possiblity of lawsuit from a company as well, simular to a Living Person. I'm suspecting something this serious must be covered someplace. Looking for more the statement of the policy, rather than opinions in this matter. Thanks. Dinkytown (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No. The spirit of this policy to to have special respect for individual living human beings. Wikipedia:Libel is our policy "to prevent the possibility of libelous lawsuits against Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP is NOT simply about the WMF being sued. BLP is about making sure we don't libel people, because libel is a BAD THING regardless of the legalities. BLP is in the end an heightened application of NPOV and WP:V - i.e. we are a factual and neutral encyclopedia. Whilst BLP doesn't literally apply to corporations, NPOV and V still do. If there's information that looks non-neutral, or is not verified it can be removed. If you remove information, it must not be put back unless the one wanting it in can produce a reliable source in support.--

Doc

^g 00:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is time that the strictures in BLP be extended to all subjects. Quatloo (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP has added restrictions, IMO, because real people have feelings and may also have a right to privacy. A person can feel insulted in a way that a chemical element can't. Maybe that means a lawsuit, but maybe it just means emotional ill-will. Additionally—and this is where WP:N starts to kick in—not all people, or all facts about people, deserve to be in an article. In the extreme, a living person's social security number should never be in an article, even if a picture of their card got plastered onto the New York Times. Other identifying information like birthdates may not be appropriate for inclusion. Now, if somebody runs for public office or poses in Playboy, then they've reasonably put themselves into the public eye and can expect a lot of information about their background to make it into newspaper articles and books (and from there, possibly ultimately into Wikipedia).

Even though corporations may legally qualify as people, I don't think they fall under the BLP criteria. A corporation can't feel insulted. (Though a comment insulting its board or management would be about living people...) A corporation doesn't have a right to privacy—I'm not a lawyer, but I would expect that, for a fee, you could get a copy of a company's articles of incorporation.

That said, there's still no excuse for shoddy writing. If it's not verifiable and not neutral, it doesn't belong in an article—regardless of whether it's the article for newsprint, the Chicago Sun-Times, or Conrad Black. —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your input. I can agree with you completely about the libel aspects of it. The problem is not that he is trashing any company products - it’s the way he wants to use it. He wants to compare certain company products on a page that might damage reputations of some companies, and that I think his trying to promote his own favorite product. It can very quickly boil down to an advertising war, which in my POV is not in the best interest for Wiki and I'm trying to find some policies that could counter this. In my POV I think it’s irrelevant to the page. But that’s another issue that we’re fighting over.

I don’t want to divulge too much here because we’re in mediation, but I was looking for any policy that this might fall into. Dinkytown (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A company can in a sense be embarrassed, and that can be a lot more expensive than when a person is. A common stock corporation can suffer from bad press-- sometimes in ways that can lose a company hundreds of millions in market cap and benefit those selling the corporation's stock on

Overstock.com bruhaha is about that, and one of the problems was the allegation that deliberate attempts to smear the company were being made on Wikipedia. The company was so overzealous about trying fix the well-sourced but also very negative reporting on its finances, that its' Com director and his entire ISP (Broadweave) got blocked from editing (but guess what-- the negativity on Overstock didn't get reverted). None of which is really nice. As I pointed out at the time, no matter how badly Overstock is run, if that kind of info got stuck into the Wikia article (say), it would get removed as being defammatory to the company (and Wikimedia Foundation, in particular, is about to suffer from exactly that type of well-sourced but bad criticism, in the way it is run as a company). So let's have no double standards in this. I don't like BLP as it is, and would be happy if it disappeared (except for paper-encyclopedia-famous living people), and all that now applies to BLP, instead applied to private companies, enterprises, corporations, etc. Leave market-analysis up to market analysts, and leave the Investor Report crap out of Wikipedia. It's a quagmire. Do we really WANT to assimilate it?? Summaries of Q4 reports and all?SBHarris

04:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Libel is our policy "to prevent the possibility of libelous lawsuits against Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk)

I am against this expansion of BLP, which seems

WP:NOT should be sufficient to prevent that. UnitedStatesian (talk

) 16:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Normal sourcing rules and other policies should apply to corporations. If we apply BLP to companies, next it will be private groups, then military groups, then whole countries... if negative press comes up and is sourced about a company, it's different than if it's about a living person. Business entities aren't people, and neither is a national military, or a paramilitary group, or a terrorist group, or the Red Cross, or the Wikimedia Foundation, or the Internal Revenue Service. We have fine sourcing rules for those already in place. If BLP applied to "anything" involving living people in this regard, it would be a can of worms and a half. What happens when a company like Overstock decides it doesn't want an article? Opt them out? Nonsense. Lawrence Cohen 17:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the other party in the request for mediation. The controversy is about a table of specifications [1] for a type of tent known as lavvu. The table contains information about the canvas weight, pole height, etc for different designs. As source I have used whitepapers from a manufactorer. The problem seems to be that it may be controversial whether one of the designs is a lavvu, and that the manufactorer may therefore sue Wikipedia since they are mentioned in the same article as a possible controversy. To make things interesting the same table has also been accused of being an advertisment/spam for that company, and not being entirely translated to english. For all the details refer to: RfM Table. Labongo (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that existing core Wikipedia policies, directly address the issues in the lavvu article. Wikipedia should not take a position on whether a particular tent qualifies as a lavvu or not. If there is notable controversy about this, we should mention it in terms of who is saying what, e.g. "Zorch Camping Ltd. sells a line of tents it calls lavvu, however the International Lavvu Association says several models do not qualify as a lavvu because they have a center poll. [citation goes here] " It's hard to see why much more than that is warranted or how Zorch could sue assuming the quote is accurate.--agr (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that all of the issues in the article can be solved by applying the core Wikipedia policies, since all the controversies are about which sources can and should be used. However, it has been really hard to get anyone to comment on the issues, and it should not have been necessary to bring these issues to formal mediation. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have attempted to provide a summary of the issues at the end of this RfC: Talk:Lavvu#RfC:_Can_a_lavvu_have_a_single_pole. Sorry for the OT comment, Labongo (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your input.

Since we are in mediation, I did not want to expand this discussion back into a RFC. I was only looking for input as to if there was a policy that similar to the

WP:BLP

policy. It looks like other standing policies can be addressed. However, since Labongo spilled the beans on this whole matter (see above), claiming that “…it should not have been necessary to bring these issues to formal mediation...” I have to respond and straighten out the facts here...

It has been preaty well documented through primary historical sources that the Sami multi-pole lavvu has been around for hundreds of years, however there are no historical sources that show a "single-pole lavvu.” The ancient Egyptians have never used the tipi - the Sami never used the "single-pole lavvu” - simple as that... However, this single-pole tent design has a long history as a bell tent, which was used by many European and American militaries - but had nothing to do with the Sami. Many tent manufacturers have correctly been calling this single-pole tent design bell tents, but within the past few years, a few erroneous companies have been calling - and selling, these bell tents as a 'lavvu’. Labongo would like to put all these tents together in a table and compare them to each other - each with their company's website (“whitepapers”) right next to each tent. In fact “...feel free to add specifications from other vendors to the table…”[2]. I would call this free advertisingat Wiki's expense - even if these tents are not even lavvus.

Labongo’s sources for his "single-pole lavvu” have only been from commercial websites (“whitepapers”) from these erroneous companies and blogs, which conflict with Reliable Sources, Weblogs, and Advertising policies of Wiki - just to name a few. He has not provided any other sources to support his argument.

This is the reason why I enquired if other policies, such as

WP:BLP

would come into play here, since some companies may not want to be involved in this kind of comparison.

I realize that this issue is outside this subject of this page and for this I apologize, but I felt I have to respond to this. Dinkytown (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Recently, an admin (who I will avoid naming in an attempt to keep this less contentious) edited and protected the talk page of a living person's biography, in order to remove a discussion of whether a newspaper story should be mentioned in the article, citing

I did some digging and found the talk page in question. Due to the issues you mention, I will not name it here. After examining the situation, I feel comfortable stating the following:

1. Throughout the course of the discussion, the negative information had been presented in the context of discussing the relevance of the material, and no negative personal comments about the subject had been made.
2. Per
   WP:BLP
   ), the information likely does not merit inclusion in the article.
3. The blanking of the section at this time (i.e. while the discussion was ongoing) is not supported by the BLP policy. Indeed, it contravenes the principles set out in the policy, and hinders consensus-building.
4. The page protection, if at all appropriate, is not a long-term solution, especially since the article itself is also fully protected.

– Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I will not attempt to point any fingers at anybody. However, for a full discussion there's got to be something more specific than some vague reference to some unnamed article. The page in question is Talk:Carl Hewitt (see also its page history). I guess am completely clueless about something, as otherwise I don't see anything in that page worth protecting, nor the need to talk about this in general without referring to the specific situation. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what the admin who protected the talk page said when I asked for explanation:

"Hi Jitse, people keep posting links to the article about the subject's supposed relationship with WP. It's self-referential, arguably quite insulting, and it's unlikely to be regarded as relevant to the article, which is anyway closed to editing. Therefore, there's no need to keep posting it on talk. Because it seemed gratuitous, I protected the page."

I have no time at the moment to reply in detail, but I will say that I disagree with protecting the talk page and I agree with what Black Falcon says. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't be mleive merely mentioning the article on the talk page would harm the subject in any way. As there seemed to be a consensus to not include the reference in the main article protecting and blanking the talk page seems counter-productive. —Ruud 17:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the admin involved to remove the protection.DGG (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I protected the talk page because people keep adding links to the Observer article, which was not entirely pleasant (and the newspaper was almost certainly tipped off by a Wikipedian), and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is self-referential and unusable as a source. Given that it can't be used, and given the article's protected anyway, there's no good reason to keep adding links to the talk page, so it seemed somewhat gratuitous.

This man has complained, rightly or wrongly (I've not followed the details so I really don't know) that he's the target of a campaign of harassment by Wikipedia. I think we ought to make it clear that we're not focused on him in any way by backing off him a little. That's why I protected the page. If any other admin wants to unprotect, then of course there's nothing I can do about it, but I would request at least a short period of protection to give the guy some breathing space. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to argue that this particular news story should be used as a source in this particular article. But can you explain your "unusable as a source"? Even when a newspaper story refers to events within Wikipedia, it is still a newspaper story, and can be used as a source whenever the events it documents are appropriately noteworthy, I'd think. How does this differ from any other situation where a newspaper documents events that one has other sources of firsthand knowledge about? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

David, what I meant is that the issue is too self-referential to be used in the Wikipedia article. A Wikipedian clearly tipped off the freelancer who wrote the story, so Wikipedia using that story as a source in its own article, is close to OR. It isn't in fact OR because the Observer is a reliable source, but on this occasion, it's a source that we created. There was a Supreme Court ruling on this in either Canada or the U.S. that I'm going to try to find -- basically, it said that publications have to distinguish between information gained through journalistic effort, and information gained via complaints to the newspaper from people who've been written about. The case was triggered by a newspaper writing about someone, who complained about the story, and then writing about them again with details of their complaint. The Supreme Court ruled against the newspaper.

I'm not making a legal point here about Wikipedia, just a moral and editorial point. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Which it seems that many people disagree with, me included. The Observer is A+ as a source and while we might decide that it's not suitable for inclusion in an article, locking the talkpage so people cannot discussed it is out of line. The page should be unprotected ASAP. In addition, your claim that it "is close to OR" is neither here or there - it's NOT OR as defined by wikipedia and that's all we are interested in. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't your claim (much as it is "clear" to you that they were acting on a tip off from a Wikipedian - let's not get into the separation between editors and their works, one is a person, one is a writing, I didn't realize you could claim that anyone who has edited on Wikipedia becomes Wikipedia and therefore self-referential?!?) original research in itself? It's not established fact by any means, just your opinion, and you've offered little evidence to back it up other than "it's pretty obvious". Is that the appropriate standard? Achromatic (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In delicate situations, a graduated series of increasingly delicate solutions should be used. In a normal case, the talk page conversation can be allowed to go its normal course. In an extreme situation, it may be deemed necessary to hold the conversation in private, but making sure to invite both sides and have someone play devil's advocate to make sure all appropriate facts come to light. In between, one could notify relevant parties, unlock the page for a one hour debate at an appropriate time, then archive the debate at the end of the hour. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of discussing and repeatedly linking to it on talk, Frederick, given that it's not suitable for inclusion in the article, which is anyway protected from editing? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But others might disagree that it's suitable for inclusion and should be allowed to argue their case - locking the talkpage prevents that. The amount of times it is linked is a complete red herring, once something is linked, it's linked - regards if it occurs once or ten times. Currently YOU have decided that it's not suitable for dicussion and have locked the talkpage to enforce your view of events - that is the crux of what we are discussing. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that the article is locked for editing. Admins may edit protected pages if requested, but only if the changes they make are uncontroversial. This would be a controversial change. Therefore, it won't be added until protection is lifted, if at all. There is therefore no need to discuss it on talk until then, and no need at all to link to it on talk. We see this a lot with BLPs -- where people can't get the link they want into an article, they post it to talk instead, in the hope of making it appear higher on Google. It's that practice that I protected the page against. I'm not implying that any of the editors who kept restoring the links were definitely doing that, but I've seen it happen a lot before, and I was concerned that it was happening here. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the notion that there is no need to discuss controversial changes to an article while it is protected. That is precisely the time when such discussion should take place! Indeed, protection often comes about because of controversial edits made without adequate prior discussion. As I've noted above, I do not necessarily object to blanking the section once discussion has finished, and I do not support inclusion of the information in the article; however, I feel that preventing any discussion of the matter in the first place is not justified. When information is published in a source like The Guardian, it's unreasonable to act as if it doesn't exist. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the protected pages are the ones for which it is the most important that the talk pages remain unprotected. Otherwise, how could anyone make an {{

editprotected}} request? —David Eppstein (talk

) 21:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask you recurse yourself from this matter as you are currently using your administration powers to win a content dispute on a talkpage - this is not an article in the world weekly news, it's in the observer and there is no suggestion that it is incorrect, so waving BLP around is another red herring. I'll be posting this on the AN to get wider input from the community. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Frederick, I'm not involved with this article and have no interest in the content dispute. I took an administrative action on BLP grounds. If an uninvolved administrator disagrees strongly enough to undo it, so be it, but my own view is that the page should stay protected for a short time. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with SlimVirgin here ... she has not significantly edited the article and all her edits on the talk page have been with regard to this issue. I don't agree with all of her actions in that respect, but I don't think she could be considered to have a

vested interest in the article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk

) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Having read Black Falcon's suggestion above, would that be a compromise? The talk page is unprotected to allow a brief discussion about the Observer article, and then after a few days -- say, three days? -- the discussion is blanked. Would people agree to this? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine with me (I assume the page would remain unprotected after the discussion is blanked...), though I should note I intend to limit my involvement in this particular case to the policy level only. So, the opinions of the people who intend to involve themselves at the article level (i.e. discuss at the talk page) should probably have more weight. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with Black Falcon here. People need to be able to discuss possible changes to the article on the talk page especially when the article itself is protected. Preventing any discussion about what should go into the article is counterproductive.

talk

) 21:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion presented by Black Falcon, and supported by others above seems to be a good compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

SV, any objections to unprotection based on the proposed compromise? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No objection, and thanks for the suggestion, Black Falcon. I've unprotected and I'll leave a note on talk. Also, to answer BF, I currently have no plans to reprotect once the discussion is over. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help and thanks, respectively. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

4.3 reads "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." This is not sufficient guidance--it would depend on the event and the sources. If major national newspapers of record of a serious non-tabloid nature, (The NYT and the WSJ come to mind as examples) cover an event in major stories, then perhaps the event is notable enough that a separate bio is justifiable. Any ideas for more exact criteria.?DGG (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Crossposting something mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Subject-preferred format

Shouldn't we have someting on article naming conventions in the BLP policy? - "... do we have a BLP-like "ethical and legal responsibility" when choosing page names? Suppose

cummings and ms. lang. -- Kendrick7^talk

18:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Re. technical issue: no, and that's easier to resolve than a move over a non-redirect, the page is now at

lowercase}} (compare eBay

).

For all the examples I could find thus far I think this one the most troubling (bolding the current actual page name):

Yusuf Islam. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 19:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the template hint. Good example too; the third choice is probably the correct one per this policy. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we've gone overboard with the Jimbo Wales quotes here. Any objection to deleting them?

Yes, I object; he's the best. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo is Wikipedia's designated agent, and deals with the some of the worst cases which gets emailed, faxed, and posted to him by people who are obscure enough to care about what Wikipedia says about them. He is probably the most knowledgeable person about real world BLP issues. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-15t08:46z

I've created this shortcut purely as a housekeeping matter to enable the criterion to be more easily cited in deletion discussions etc. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph currently states in relevant part that

When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. There is no consensus about how much weight editors should give the subject's wishes; in that matter the closing administrator exerts discretion.

However, many subjects, being relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia, request that articles concerning them be deleted for the sole purpose of preventing vandalism and defamatory editing. If such deletions are effectuated, they result in the gratuitous destruction of encyclopedic content, since the placement of permanent full protection on such articles, and any content transcluded into them, would essentially prevent malicious edits. As subjects of articles do not own them, Wikipedia has no duty to accede to the request of a subject that bears no rational relationship to the prevention of a tangible harm. Deletion of articles upon request, then, should only occur where it is reasonably asserted that the requested deletion is necessary to prevent a substantive harm, namely, that the very existence of the article provides publicity concerning a non-public figure which is harmful -- see, for example, the sort of articles that formed the basis of the dispute in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I therefore suggest that the relevant paragraph be modified as follows:

When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, and it is reasonably asserted that the requested deletion is necessary to prevent a substantive harm to the privacy of a non-public figure, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. There is no consensus about how much weight editors should give the subject's wishes; in that matter the closing administrator exerts discretion. Note that full page protection, but not deletion, is an appropriate response to concerns relating to malicious editing.

John254 16:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What happens if someone disagrees? Normal DRV process? There needs to be some sort of definable cut-off when someone reaches a point of notability that they can't simply opt-out. Could a US congressman opt out? Could a film actor? A recognized authority in a given field? What is the line that determines if someone is a public or private figure? Lawrence Cohen 17:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, if there is a consensus that the subject of an article is notable, the BLP deletion standards paragraph doesn't apply, and the article can't be deleted upon request. There's no bright-line rule as to where the threshold of notability is, however. Here's the problem with the way the BLP deletion standards are applied presently: even if the subject of an article is a notable public figure, some editors participating in an AFD discussion will claim that the subject isn't notable, based on purely subjective assertions of non-notability. Then, if the subject of the article has requested that it be deleted, the administrator who closes the AFD discussion can delete the article, even if the only basis for deletion was to prevent vandalism and other malicious editing. This results in the needless destruction of content, since fully protecting the article would prevent defamatory editing at least as well as deletion. John254 17:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The proposed additional wording, appears to be

Dreadstar †

18:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The revised paragraph would be instruction creep, if we could apply this policy in a non-bureaucratic manner. Since some administrators insist on applying the letter of this policy, even to situations in which it is counterproductive, it's necessary to expressly enumerate those situations in the text of the policy itself. Would you believe that at this AFD discussion, an article was deleted for the sole purpose of preventing malicious editing, and that this action was upheld on deletion review? John254 18:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's somewhat of a misstatement of the deletion reasons as well as of the reasons the deletion was upheld. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a misstatement at all. Let me quote in relevant part from the statement by the administrator who closed the AFD discussion:

Mr. Finkelstein's concerns are very valid; a Wikipedia article is a prime target for trolls who want to anonymously defame the subject. Now that Wikipedia has become one of the highest-visited sites on the Internet, we have to take into account that things said on Wikipedia articles can and will affect the subject's life. We've seen this happen before; only recently, a professor was detained in an airport because his Wikipedia biography falsely stated that he had ties to a terrorist group.

In other words, the article was deleted for the sole purpose of preventing malicious editing, a purpose far less destructively accomplished with full protection. John254 22:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a overstatement of the reason for deletion. The closer clearly said that the question of notability ended with "no consensus", but the tipping point was the request by the subject of the aritcle. I don't see how that would be a delete based solely on trolling or malicious editing. There were good arguments regarding the marginal notability of the subject, so those cannot be discounted. If there is to be a change in policy of this magnitude, it would need wide consensus. As for it being a 'silly deletion', it was hurting the subject of the article...I see nothing silly about that.

Dreadstar †

04:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Seth Finkelstein? The tech writer??[3] Are you kidding me? Hell, I almost just used him as a source for the

Scroogle article. -- Kendrick7^talk

04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Did you read the AfD? That's what I was talking about, the reasoning the closing admin gave - right or wrong. Your link returned 444 pages, whereas Maureen Dowd, New York Times returns about a thousand times as many pages...notable? And, um Google news.

Dreadstar †

05:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I do have to admit that comparing the

Dreadstar †

05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, three articles in the last month. OK, so he's a weekly columnist, and the much older Dowd has written more than him. Try the full archive of Google News and it's 600+ hits. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ach, ye did'nae jest refer to the lass as "much older", now did ya, laddie? I'd give a thought ta rephrasing that...eh?

Dreadstar †

05:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John that a change should be made to avoid such silly deletions. However, I don't think changing the paragraph is necessary. I think a footnote could acomplish the same thing, without the instruction creep. Putting

Not all reasons for requesting deletion are reasonable and hold merit.

(subject to rewording) as a footnote should acomplish the same thing without cluttering up the paragraph. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. John254 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the paragraph of some meandering language. Hopefully I haven't changed the underlying meaning anywhere. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a splendid idea and fully support it. I wish I could write more, but there's not much more to my position. User:Krator (t c) 20:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this reword is necessary. I wonder what prompted it? ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This proposal was prompted by this AFD discussion, in which an article was deleted for the sole purpose of preventing malicious editing, an action which was subsequently upheld at deletion review. Many users who commented in the deletion review opined that the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLP_deletion_standards should be upheld exactly as written, no matter how how counterproductive in actual practice, until the policy was changed [4] [5] [6]. So, here we are. John254 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on discussion here, including concerns relating to instruction creep, I propose a revised version of the

GFDL.

This language avoids unjustified deletions by requiring that a request for deletion be objectively reasonable before an administrator may exercise discretion. John254

23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as we're here, I have no idea what "thwart the point" means. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In this context, "thwart the point" means to merge material to another article in a manner that creates a harm that the deletion of the article was designed to prevent. For instance, if an article concerning a non-public figure is deleted due to the claim that privacy concerns prevent the mention of the subject's name in any encyclopedic content, it would "thwart the point" of the deletion to merge the deleted material to any other article. John254 03:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would send any request to

WP:AFD with a diff to the request. Bearian'sBooties (talk

) 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the added phrases in the first proposed version. It is not instruction creep, but a much needed clarification as the previous version merely left it all up to the closing admin. It is not clear right now that legitimate concerns of harm, rather than "I don't like it," are required for anyone of ambiguous notability to request that their article be deleted. Since it is so controversial, the section should be as clear as possible. The second addition about full page protection should always be considered, and it's a good idea to remind the closing admin of it. –Pomte 11:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Prefer the shorter version, but support the longer version if necessary. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion, standard process

What is the procedure for undeletion of these? For example, if someone wanted to recreate the Finklestein article, and collected a hundred sources demonstrating he's such and such notable. Normal DRV? Is extra weight given to the fact he asked for deletion, and that the article was deleted for these prior borderline reasons? Lawrence Cohen 00:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet is to sandbox it from scratch. Then when you have an article with all the sources publish it. If and when it gets speedy redeleted, then argue it at DRV. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, I'm going to implement the shorter revised version of the BLP deletion standards paragraph described above. I would request that editors not revert this change unless they have a substantive disagreement with it, and are willing to participate in the discussion here -- per Help:Reverting, "Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously" At a bare minimum, this implies that users should not revert edits with which they have no disagreement, solely for the sake of process. John254 16:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a special section should be added to emphasize that undue weight is of particular concern in BLP, especially as it relates to negative content. As I read WP policies and Jimbo's comments regarding BLP's, it is better to NOT include negative content (even if it is sourced) if it takes more prominence in the article than the negative event has in the subject's life. The burden should be on the editor who includes the negative content to demonstrate that there is not undue weight. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an unresolved issue with wikipedia that needs more thought. In the case of people, issues, and such that are well documented, we merely need to reflect the weighting of claims in the article according to the most reliable/credible of the published sources. In cases of a singe event, we merely need to write about that event rather than pretend we are publishing a biography. In the case of a semi or ambiguously notable person we can delete the article if we lack reliable published sources to provide balance. But we don't yet have a good strategy for people who are too notable for multiple things to leave out yet not sufficiently covered by reliable published sources to present a balanced account - leaving us with the equivalent of a news clipping service on a person, corporation, movement, group or other news-notable but not yet encyclopedia-noted thing we wish to cover. One solution is just don't cover it since no other encyc does. Another solution is to label the article in some way saying it has due-weight or balance issues that we expect to be resolved over the years as more reliable published data becomes available and in the meantime we are sorry that at present it is no more than a news clipping article. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that what sourced information we have on someone might be because it's negative; there isn't an article written about their excellent driving skills and children but an article is written about a scandal they're intertwined with. It wouldn't hurt to add suggestion that material seen as negative should be balanced with other information that isn't seen in that light when possible. I've seen at least one case where only the most negative aspecs of several articles were used. The editor may not have been attempting to do so but it sure felt that way. pointing them to some constructive suggestions could be beneficial to all concerned.

Benjiboi

11:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As an example of this, take a look at the article on Frank LaGrotta. An indictment (not conviction) is currently taking 50% of the article. Sure, it's sourced, but it's suffering terribly from Undue Weight. Any editor who puts in material such as that should have the burden to demonstrate that it is not undue weight. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with "undue weight" is that it is very imprecise. There's no way of calculating a formula to show how much space should be given to each topic in a biography. One way of judging proper weight is by looking at coverage in reliable sources. A person may drive every day and be a great driver, but unless they're a race car driver that fact will probably go unmentioned in any reliable source. OTOH, their alma mater may be mentioned in every biographical sketch even if college wasn't an important life experience for them. When the coverage in reliable sources is entirely focused on a single event, then that event may be better covered in a stand-alone article. However when we have a biography of a person who has been convicted of a significant crime, we shouldn't exclude mention of that crime just because we can't find any positive aspects to balance it out. Using the neutral point of view does not mean that all articles must be perfectly balanced between negative and positive material. People are notable for what's noted about them. It's not the job of Wikipedia to dig up dirt on an individual, but it isn't our job to bury it either. Regarding Frank LaGrotta, an example that has been raised by Jkp212 before, he was a relatively insignificant state legislator who rarely made the news until he was found to be part of a minor political scandal which led to his electoral loss to a political neophyte. To the extent that anyone will remember him in 20 years, it will be for that scandal, not for his chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on the Capitol Budget. Since it is the most notable event in his life, it should receive the greatest weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Coverage" -- that type of reasoning basically says that WP should be used a a newspaper. If the main info you have on a very little known person is an indictment, then either the article should be deleted, or the article needs to be balanced out before adding negative info such as that. In the article you reference, the subject hasn't even been convicted yet, and you are already claiming that is how he will be remembered 20 years from now--Jkp212 (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

An article on a " a very little known person" should be deleted on sight. Unless there are multiple reliable sources published about a person, we cannot construct a neutral article. See

WP:BLP1E ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Our Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline says that the presumption is that all state legislators are notable. This legislator is more notable than most, and there are possibly hundreds of reliable sources available that mention him. An indictment is not "negative" material - it's a legal fact, just like winning an award is a fact, not "positive" material. So long as it's been well-reported there's no reason to delete it much less the entire article. Jkp212 has had ample opportunity to research and add other aspects of the subject's life to the article, but appears interested only in deleting any mention of this indictment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Will, I think you bring up a very important question to the policy discussion, which is what this is really about, namely:

WHO SHOULD THE BURDEN BE ON TO AVOID UNDUE WEIGHT? 

In my opinion, as it relates to BLP, the burden should be on any editor who is including the negative material. If the mantra of BLP is "do no harm", and WP:undue is an important principle of WP, then the editor must have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the negative material being added is balanced to the article as a whole. This is especially true with lesser known people like LaGrotta, whom we have referenced. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Before we answer that question there's a more urgent one to answer: "What is undue weight?"

OJ Simpson, famous for his football and acting careers, was acquitted of the murder of his wife and her friend. Should the coverage of that trial be minimal in our article about him? Or do we acknowledge that that case received wide coverage in the media and therefore is an aspect of his notability? If so, what is the proper weight? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

23:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily my specialty, which I clearly acknowledge, so feel free to ignore what follows if that's what it deserves. Personally, I think currently he is probably as well known for his misconduct as he was for his sports and acting careers. On that basis, I personally think that the amount of coverage he receives for the trials and subsequent developments should probably receive more attention than his acting career (which honestly wasn't that much in the first place), and possibly roughly equivalent weight to his sports career. However, there is the question of whether there are already other articles covering the trial. There is a precedent with

Joseph Smith, Jr. to have more than one article regarding a subject's life, and in this case, particularly with the most recent developments, that might, potentially, be one of the better options available. John Carter (talk

) 23:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're correct in your assessment of the relative weights for the Simpson bio. But the real issue here is how do we decide? What's the mechanism or formula that tells us how much weight to assign to a topic within a biography? When there is so much material that splitting out an event for further coverage then that can avoid weight problems, but many biographies contain less-important events that are nonetheless worth reporting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, having stuck my nose in, I guess I should try to answer, shouldn't I? I'm guessing that no one has answered this question conclusively already, otherwise you wouldn't have asked again. Anyway, here goes. I'm going to assume, probably wrongly, that a biography article should cover the subject's life adequately in all regards, including coverage of potentially damaging events. Most BLP articles will, in a sense, have less material than that of the dead, because there won't be any postmortem recognition yet. I would guess that simply ensuring that the article at least mentions all the major highlights of the subject's life would be in order. Clearly, if the subjects themselves lay particularly emphasis on one or more incidents, it would be reasonable to ensure that there is enough content for the reader to be able to adequately understand it. Also, well, if the courts or other outside entities had little if any interest regarding the subject outside of a few key matters, then it would be similarly reasonable to ensure that those incidents are gone into with sufficient content to ensure a full understanding. I know that most of the articles we have can be reasonably substantially lengthened, so generally that shouldn't be too big of a concern. Also, clearly, if a given incident significantly involves more individuals than just the subject in a separate article, summary sections with any additional significant details regarding the subject specifically could reasonably be added to their articles, with a link to the outside article. I know wikipedia is not paper, and I know it might sound like I'm using that as an excuse to not be thinking too hard. In terms of this noticeboard, I'm assuming that the primary concerns would be incidents the subjects aren't particuarly happy to address very often? Maybe I'm a being a bit of a bastard, like Mom always said :), but I would assume that the subject's own assessment of importance aren't necessarily particularly important to us? Generally, just let the material develop as the writers see fit to do so, and maybe only ask about due weight when the concerns are raised. I really don't think that there could ever be a general "template" for the amount of material on any given incident or period, though. Yeah, I know, I copped out big time, but I guess I really don't have an answer. John Carter (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good assessment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted the text of this Arbcom ruling into a new subsection. The Arbcom ruling made this de facto Wikipedia policy. For this reason, I believe it should be in the publicly-visible policy and available for community comment. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added two additional sentences from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff so that all three key principles from that ruling are explicit in the policy. The third, "Do no harm," is already explicit. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few words emphasizing the need to omit unnecessary personal details on marginal figures. I get uncomfortable when reading articles on borderline-notable people that mention who their husband is and so on. Of course, it's a different matter when we're discussing highly notable couples such as Bill and Hillary. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when is one's spouse private information? I see the point of someone's birth day number, which can be used for identity theft, and there is no reason that a year and month or just a year is any worse, usually. But why would someone's spouse be sensitive information? MilesAgain (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, turn it around and look at it the other way. How does mentioning a spouse's name add to the article? If that spouse is well known in their own right then knowing their name might provide relevant data, but if not then I don't see that it adds anything of substance to the article - it's just a random name, a bit of trivia. Pairadox (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the present formulation of that paragraph is that it unequivocally assumes that the name of the subject's family status is irrelevant to their notability, though there might be particular circumstances in which the information would be relevant, or, indeed, subjects whose notability is derived from their family status. I'm going to trim the specific mention of family status from that paragraph. John254 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. The broad point was that we shouldn't give unnecessary details on the lives of marginally-notable people; the bit about family status was only meant as an example. I can see how it could be misconstrued as a blanket prohibition. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, I'm a bit troubled by the haste with which this is being implemented. Is it common practice for the official policy to be changed with such a short discussion period? Or, in the case of at least two changes today, with announcements rather than discussion? Pairadox (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "Basic human dignity" section described above is quoted directly from the findings of the Arbitration Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, so it has been effective policy for quite some time, even if never included in the text of the policy. Aside from specific mention of family status, this edit merely restates the meaning of the sentence to which it is appended, and is, in my view, actually redundant -- it's certainly not substantively new policy. John254 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone's year of birth is more likely to be less relevant to their notability than the name of their spouse, but we include it because we want to be able to figure out how old they are. How old they are is almost always completely irrelevant to their notability. We include spouse's names, because we want to know who they are. If Alice Obama phones in an order to your store, or otherwise comes in contact with you, it would be nice to know. It's far more important than year of birth, and something people are likely to want to know. Encyclopedias are supposed to be comprehensive, and in the absence of any reason not to include the name of a spouse (per the above) we should when we can. MilesAgain (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to include information where the subject of an article has said one thing in published RS, and later contradicted himself (i.e. a public admission of prostitution that is later denied)?

I will just say that in

WP:BLP/N-- ALLSTARecho

19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the information removed here wouldn't ordinarily be considered original research, it is original research within the meaning of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material, since it employs an extrapolation from primary sources to make a controversial claim concerning a living person. In the context in which they were employed in the article, the interview with Salon magazine, and subsequent interviews, are considered to be primary sources, since they involved direct quotations of statements by the subject of the article himself, which were not verified by the sources publishing them. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper or political scandal sheet; it is not our purpose to publicize every conceivable controversy concerning the subjects of our articles that may be derived from the examination of primary sources. Editors are cautioned not to reinsert this information into the article once the protection expires. John254 20:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

When one's whole being of notoriety is because one is claiming to be a Christian Republican U.S. Marine on a crusade but got found out to be a prostitute and a gay porn actor, it's nolonger tabloid or political scandal but worthy news.. at least worthy enough that media outlets across the country covered it. Is Wikipedia any better, or worse in this case for not covering/including the info, than FOX News or the Associated Press or The Marines Times or The Army Times? All of those fine news organizations covered the story or were told the story by Sanchez. What makes Wikipedia better than them? I say nothing. And I say in the interest of truth and fairness that the material be presented as sourced but also include the fact that Sanchez now denies that he was ever a whore. That way there is no BLP policy to apply. -- ALLSTARecho 23:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If the controversial material has been covered in third party reliable sources, which actually assert its truth, then it can be included in the article, provided that appropriate citations are furnished. For instance,

OTRS, I cannot evaluate whether they would be amenable to restoration of the paragraph in any event. Since the article was protected at the request of the OTRS member Mercury, you should contact him for clarification of this issue. John254

02:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The prostitution allegations were verified by

Reelm (talk

) 03:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt_Sanchez#Adult_entertainment is supported by third-party reliable sources elsewhere in the article, even though some of the references provided in the section itself aren't reliable. To the best of my knowledge, the article by Max Blumenthal wasn't present in any part of the article at the time of this edit. Note that when controversial information concerning a living person is inserted into a Wikipedia article, third-party reliable sources to substantiate it must either be provided at the same time, or already present in the article. Controversial information may be removed due to its present lack of acceptable sourcing, even if sufficient source material can later be found. John254 03:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the references used to support the section dealing with Matt Sanchez's gay porn career also says that he admitted working as a prostitute. Here's the link. And here's the relevant quote from the link:

During a radio interview with Fox News Channel’s Alan Colmes last week, Sanchez acknowledged working as a male prostitute, but told Marine Corps Times he hasn’t had homosexual sex since he joined the Corps in 2003.

Max Blumenthal's article wasn't used as a source, but his Countdown appearance is mentioned in the National recognition section. The ref link for the Countdown segment is posted here. (The video clip referenced here was deleted for some reason, but you can see another version of the clip here.) During this segment Alison Stewart and Max Blumenthal talk about the prostitution allegations.

These allegations are also supported by another third source titled "Weekly Standard used alleged former male escort Matt Sanchez as source to attack credibility of a TNR "Baghdad Diarist."

Reelm (talk

) 15:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So you don't think the Salon.com source is reliable? It was written by Sanchez himself and in that article he admitted he used to be a male prostitute. I think that's quite reliable. And you don't think that Youtube source is reliable? It's the actual recording of his interview with FOX News' Alan Colmes where Sanchez, in his own voice, not once but twice, admitted he used to be a male prostitute. In that edit you refer to, both sources are quite reliable. -- ALLSTARecho 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources are reliable. The manner in which they are used in the disputed paragraph, however, constitutes original research for the purposes of enforcing the biographies of living persons policy, because Salon and FOX News do not assert the truth of the statements they quote. John254 03:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez wrote the Salon.com article himself. Sanchez used his own voice and made the admission in the FOX News interview. How more truthful that he wrote it/said it can you get? -- ALLSTARecho 04:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The mere fact that a claim is true does not render it acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You may have brilliant original research that conclusively proves a controversial claim concerning a living person; however, per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material, as well as Wikipedia:No original research more generally, you may not add it to Wikipedia. John254 04:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is considered a reliable source on him or herself, even when published in what is usually considered less than reliable sources. The rest is just hand-waving and BLP-clubbing. Just include it and his later denial. This has nothing to do with OR, BLP clauses, or (disputed?) PST source definitions. R. Baley (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be RS for the prostitution information to be included but definitely should be balanced out with a ref that he now denies it; I think we had a good section in that article at one time and a copy is also likely in the talk archives. Sadly we probably wi;; end up digging through and refractoring the entire archives to sort it all out.

Benjiboi

06:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea that "third party" sources have to verify "to be true" statements the subject themselves made, is nowhere in our policy. If it is please cite and quote the exact section so it can be examined. In fact, we generally accept statements a subject makes about themselves by quoting and citing the statement to the subject. The radio interview is in fact a reliable source for what the subject states about himself and should be citable. In fact, per your assumption, we'd have to remove his own denial since it's self-published. It's actually a lower form of source than the radio program. I'm sure you agree that the Alan Colmes show is a reliable source since it's the own subjects voice stating what he is stating. Wjhonson (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If a celebrity gets into some negative situation, such as getting arrested for drunk driving, it's covered by the press, but these events are often forgotten in a few months. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well_known_public_figures suggests that the BLP policy only concerns sourcing, and whether or not to include a (sourced) account of a negative event is an editorial decision. Is that a fair assessment? Gimmetrow 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

This and the

Hindsight is 20/20. It may be best to wait a few months to see if press accounts still mention the incident. For most folks, celebrities included, a drunk driving arrest is a minor event. In some cases, like that of Mel Gibson, it is a significant event. It's hard to make a strict rule that defines the difference. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

One of these cases involved Halle Berry's 2000 accident, which was originally described without any context and so appeared like random tabloid dirt. I've rewritten it so it has some sort of context and relevance to the biography. These incidents, when they have an impact on the celeb's life, help a biography provide insight. Gimmetrow 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should generalize this:

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
• The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

It's not only related to category tags. It should be explicitly written for every claims regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation. Hessam (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If no-one opposes this I'll add it to "Presumption in favor of privacy" section under this title: "Privacy of Religious Beliefs and Sexual Orientation". Thanks. Hessam (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally OK for this as far as sexual orientation. However, a person's religious faith tends to say something about them. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious beliefs is much more controversial in some part of the world like middle east. Because it may cause some serious problems and threats. Hessam (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but the wording above doesn't balance in how public a figure the person is. For example, if I'm reading an article about a Lebanese politician then the religion is pertinent to what positions in government he can rise to (q.v. National Pact). Especially in places where there is a lot of inter-religious strife it becomes relevant to how they live their day to day life if they are in anyway notable in the public sphere. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's relevant. But we can write about it only if the subject publicly self-identifies with the belief. We can't rely on third party opinions about these private matters. Hessam (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC}

I don't see why in general we should need to find sources with a public profession of faith. Maybe that's how things work in

Roman Catholic simply because I can't find a source where he swears an "almost fanatical devotion" to the Pope. -- Kendrick7^talk

21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

When that Senator has never publicly talked about his religious beliefs then how do you know he's Roman Catholic? If it was not public, it's original research. No difference if we write for Wikipedia or BBC. Hessam (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, but if I find a secondary source that says that I'm OK, because presumably some reporter asked him at some point what religion he was and reported the answer, probably completely nonchalantly. "Public self-identification" seems to me to be a higher standard where an exact quote to that effect would have to be coming out of his mouth. If it's not a higher standard than what we already have in

WP:BLP. -- Kendrick7^talk

21:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd tag it for factual verification. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. What do you mean? Hessam (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Check this extreme case as an example. I don't mean it's exactly the case but i mean religious beliefs are much more important than sexual orientation. Hessam (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Would this apply only to living biographies or to historical biographies? What about people who identify as gay or lesbian but don't consider it a notable part of their lives? What about people whose sexuality has been disputed by history, by historians or family members who have altered or destroyed documents? Making air-tight cases in issues of sexual orientation is very difficult to do sometimes. --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should first apply it for biographies of living persons. In a nutshell because it can affect real people's lives! Sorry, I'm not familiar with those special cases. :-( Hessam (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please check this. Hessam (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a question, Is this against the law in Florida, United States or Wikipedia content policies if we use someone's religion in a BLP article with reliable sources? or if we delete things like this won't you think this is against

wp:censor? --Navid.k (talk

) 20:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LGBT had a discussion or two about this subject not too long ago. We were looking at both historical and' BLP, so what we came up with is a bit more general. The final consensus didn't get built, more due to apathy than to any disagreements. Here's the discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 12#Proposed guidelines regarding sexuality. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs

) 22:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I'm much more concerned about beliefs. But I think sexual orientation is also a private thing unless the person oneself wants to publicly talk about it. Otherwise every single claim is original research and unverifiable, even though it was mentioned in many sources. I don't know how they can find out what's going on in someone else's mind. So I hope others help us to build consensus this time for both issues. Because I'm not a native english speaker It's hard for me to be the only supporter of this proposal! Hessam (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about the truth, it is about what reliable sources consider to be true. If reliable secondary sources state something, we reflect that, giving it its due weight, and cite the sources. We don't care what the truth is and we don't care what goes on in the individuals mind. Behaafarid (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: What Hessam is actually concerned is to delete any reference to Bahai faith in the pages about the famous Bahais. This discussion started in [7] (the Persian Wikipedia page for Hossein Amanat). He insisted on removing the fact that Hossein Amanat is Bahai, claiming that it's against this wikipedia policy (while the fact was backed by reliable sources and Hossein Amanat is considered a distinguished figure in the Bahai community). Hessam then locked the page and I told him that instead of abusing his admin power in Persian Wikipedia, he should first discuss this issue in English Wikipedia (if he is sincere in following the policies of Wikipedia). Alefbe (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose strongly with what Hessam has suggested here. Wikipedia should adhere with the laws and regulations of the State of Flordia and any attempt at Censorship is against the current laws and our standards in Wikipedia. --Kaaveh (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're a lawyer licensed to practice in Florida, I don't think you should be issuing blanket statements about what is and what is not legal on Wikipedia. That's what the foundation has lawyers for. Pairadox (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is talking about Florida?! Who is talking about law?! Do you think OR, Verifiability and other policies are based on law in Florida? For those who are coming from persian wikipedia, please notice it's not a ballot. For talking about any special case check Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Hessam (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To

Persian wikipedia! By the way did I ever suggested that here is a ballot? Wikipedia is not censored, Although some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content. But in this case, Hessam is insistng on removing a known fact from the article that Hossein Amanat is Bahai and sadly abusing his admin power in Persian Wikipedia by protecting the page on his own revision. --Kaaveh (talk

) 02:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I'll get to that right after War and Peace. The standards you propose are far too limiting, ignore the potential for reliable third party sources for that info and would not enhance the guidelines already in place. Pairadox (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Granted, I'm new at this, and I may be saying things that aren't particularly relevant, for which I apologize in advance, but it is true that several of the religion projects have been questioned or are themselves questioning the rationality of tagging the bio of every person who has ever said they adhere to a given religion with a category to that effect. However, I think it has been clearly established that if we can find a reliable source which has clearly and explicitly referred to a given individual having, at some time, actively indicated being a member of a religious community, or been reliably sourced by others as having undertaken a ceremony of religious initiation, we are generally permitted to say that that party either is a member of that church or has been initiated to it, or whatever else the specific evidence indicates. Now, there are open questions about whether a prior initiation might still hold, and other similar questions. However, at least in the Western World regarding religion, barring really extreme cases, I can't see any realistic reason to indicate that a statement regarding a person's religious belief has to have a specific quotation from that party using a given formula. If Chris Dodd's campaign website indicates he's a Catholic, that should be considered evidence enough. In some specific cases, particularly in areas where certain religions are clearly and verifiably persecuted, I can see some qualification to this, although if as seems to be the case above a person is a member of a political party which has clear ties to a specific religion, and has been stated in reliable sources as being an adherent of that religion, I would think that common sense should prevail here, and permit saying that the person is a member of the church his party is tied to based on existing reliable third-party information. Anyway, just an idea. John Carter (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and per

WP:BURO there's no reason the Persians can't do their own thing in their own Wiki. -- Kendrick7^talk

03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the known situation, if being known as a Baha'i would endanger the person's life, you could make a case for removing it from a BLP. I have heard that Baha'is in Iran are sometimes in this ackward position. Wjhonson (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be conservative about labeling such as sexual orientation or religion. Obviously, in the case where a person publicly self-identifies as $RELIGION or $SEXUAL_ORIENTATION, and it is

Is this still relevant? I thought that Wikimedia etc was all moving to San Francisco? Wjhonson (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine California has libel laws, too. Also, while the Foundation may be moving, the servers, to my knowledge, are not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is IMDB considered a reliable source for biographies of living persons? I am thinking that it is not. Can't anyone post info there? And they don't use any references? no? Please help. Kingturtle (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I would use IMdB for is confirming someone was involved with a movie somehow, or awards nominated for or won. Other trivia, no. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it's good as a generalized source, so and so acted in several films; I wouldn't use for anything deemed controversial or likely to be questioned "top paid actor of 2005", etc.

Benjiboi

17:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the usefulness or appropriateness of IMDB's listings of film credits and the like, let me emphatically state that IMDB biographies and trivia pages should definitely not be used as sources. Mike R (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDb should not be cited as an authority for anything controversial, but note that the Writers Guild of America sends writing credit info directly to IMDb.[8] Gimmetrow 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDb is generally correct when it comes to credits (though there are many omissions and the occasional oddity). I don't find it particularly reliable when it comes to biographical data or "trivia" because even if it is currently edited there is an immense amount of material that predates the IMDb tightening its rules. It's generally safe, I feel, for things like filmographies (omissions notwithstanding) but I don't rely on it for other data. 23skidoo (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite a WP:BLP matter, but there's a lot of bio writers here too. A suggestion from a reader, emailed to me:

I'm not press, but this seemed the only access to the Wikipedes. (Mind you,

I am a former newspaper columnist.)

As a lexicographer, I admire Wikipedia, and offer one suggestion. Ask your

contributors to indicate pronunciation where needed.

For instance, I had to look up an actress with the first name of "Cote." Is

it [COAT]? [ko-TAY]? [KO-tay]?

Quite a few of our biographies include the pronunciation, but it's far from universal. Would anyone be interested in a drive to fill out pronunciations? (What groups of Wikipedians are fans of this stuff?) Adding a field in the infoboxes might help too. Anyone inspired by this suggestion? - David Gerard (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but the problem I've found is that the editors interested in doing this use the International Phonetic Alphabet, which many people aren't familiar with. We had a situation at David Icke, where an editor wouldn't allow us to say "pronounced IKE." Instead, we had to say "(pronounced /aɪk/)," [9] — which no one knew how to pronounce! Eventually we reached a compromise, whereby the "sounds like" was given its own "sounds like," and we now say "pronounced /aɪk/, to rhyme with "like"). :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a guide to pronunciation of IPA at (predictably) Help:IPA. --Tony Sidaway 13:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How long would it take someone not familiar with IPA to work out from that help page that /aɪk/ was Ike and not Ake, though? It would be good to give people a pronunciation tip on the page itself without them having to go hunting. Using the IPA for that purpose has always struck me as a case of ideology over common sense, though I may be missing a bigger picture. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If all IPA pronunciation examples also had a more understandable pronunciation example, then eventually I could learn IPA. IPA people disallowing a second pronunciation example is a case of OWN and should not be allowed. They are actively harming wikipedia by insisting on not allowing a second and more common pronunciation example (if they are indeed doing that). WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It took me a couple of seconds to work out that /aɪk/ was "Ike". Now tell me how a non-anglophone will know how you and I pronounce "Ike". --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is maybe a bad example, because it's so simple, but I'd guess anyone familiar with the Roman alphabet would know how to say "ike," and really anyone familiar with the Roman alphabet would surely be able to work out rhymes based on it. And if they're not familiar with it, they'd be unlikely to be trying to read the English Wikipedia. I suppose my point is why use another alphabet when we know this one is readily understood. I agree there's no harm in offering both, but it's rarely seen. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If we tell the reader that "Icke" is pronounced /aɪk/ in IPA and like "Ike" in some other system, then everyone wins. Surely you don't mean to tell me that you believe that IPA is the only pronunciation help system that exists? I've tried and I can't make heads or tails out of IPA. Use both systems and I'll gradually learn. Only use IPA and I have been denied information that I can understand. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that would be relevant argument if I were arguing against providing guides to pronunciation rather than for it. I don't object to "Rhymes with Ike" as long as IPA is also there to tell me what it really sounds like, no matter where I come from. --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We can live with both, I think ;-)

Greg Maxwell came up with a brilliant idea on wikien-l - a tool to automatically speak IPA text. Since IPA is precise, it can in fact be machine-read easily. I certainly hope he or someone feels inspired to take this one further - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I see two practical problems: one is determining the pronunciation and writing the IPA--I doubt most of us are qualified for either. The other is the ensuing disputes over the proper pronunciation. (I note Billy Hawthorn has been adding punctuation to his articles on Southern politicians for some time, and I think he's qualified, and its helpful.) DGG (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick question. Do we have any policy on Bios where the subject is under 18? A "delete or we'll sue" "request" was made here and at the Irish language project citing "do no harm" and "under-18" reasons. The subject was flagged under NN previously on both projects anyway, so I'm sure removal won't be an issue in this case. However are there any policy/guideline issues we should consider for this type of case? Any lessons to learn? Guliolopez (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No; age is not by itself a criterion; some very famous actors are children. In the case of Robbi McMillen, he is 16 and we can easily wait two years or until he gets sufficiently famous that his request is no longer allowed to be given weight. He just isn't notable enough yet to ignore the removal request. Not yet anyway. Note that as a performer, he is actively trying to get notable and to control his publicity, so he may well achieve enough fame prior to his 18th birthday that this gets revisited. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of cents from a professional journalist. Once someone enters the public eye (either willingly or unwillingly) they become fair game to a degree, and if they are in an entertainment field, it's fair game all the way because you rarely get people unwillingly going into entertainment. But of course just as (good) journalists have to steer clear of libel, so too Wikipedians have to be mindful of BLP policy. What that means is if Emma Watson decided she didn't want to be famous anymore and asked for her article to be taken down, she's out of luck. But if her lawyers raise an issue over an unsourced statement in the article, then that needs to be addressed, of course. Since the article in question above has already been deleted anyway, I can't comment. But if it's a case of his management trying to control messaging surrounding the guy, good luck -- I'd like to see them try this with the Times of London. 23skidoo (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Privacy of birthdates" section says, "When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth." In

It appears in various biographical profiles of the subject published by newspaper media and alongside the subject's name in library catalog records of books authored by the subject. Robert K S (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi's question. In general sources do not report the date a person was born, but typically report the year, or the subject's current age in years. So Encyclopedia Brittanica, so Gale Contemporary Authors Online. I'm speaking just of living persons here. If multiple, reliable secondary sources report his birth year, it would seem reasonable to include it. If it is only reported in a primary source, then I'd say no. Wjhonson (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I always considered this to be one of the more lamer parts of WP:BLP, and one that is weakly supported. At the very least, the birth year of a person (not the full date, but just the year) should be seen as fundamental to a biography. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason for suppressing exact date unless it is a very well known person is because it is used by the ill-intentioned for invasion of privacy and internet fraud. But the year is fundamental, even if the subject would prefer not to have it visible. I think a primary source is quite acceptable, unless there is some dispute over it. it counts as routine information. DGG (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

An administrator is insisting that Lists of people, including living people should be fully referenced. If this is the case, then can guidance be given in the article, please? There seem to be a lot of lists of people with the same surname, in Wikipedia, that are not referenced, for instance.Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 17:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in general we do want references, even for list articles. But be more specific, please. Which article are you referring to? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Quakers, which the admin converted to redirect without consultation. Someone revived it and is attempting to add references. See discussion at

• • Talk:List_of_Quakers#Reviving

and

• • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religious_Society_of_Friends_(Quakers)#List_of_Quakers Vernon White

^{. . . Talk} 19:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm quite amused by the idea that

fact}} tag or something, and given some days or even a couple of weeks to source before deleting. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

20:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the key concept is "contentious". In my view, it is unlikely that a mistaken description of a living person as a Quaker would be contentious. If a name is added to the List of Quakers, it is extremely probable that a member of the Quaker Wikiproject will check out the claim. Is anyone responsible for checking out lists of people with the same surname? The person description could easily be contentious.Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 14:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like an independent opinion on these edits: [10] and [11]. I've removed the content. User is new.

Although the edit cites a page on msnbc.msn.com, it's in the "Tabloid Tidbits" section, is qualified as "may have" happened, and is based on a National Enquirer interview with "some guy who claimed to be" the friend of a named inside source. Stretches credibility, even with the msnbc.msn.com url. Gimmetrow 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am that user. I, too, want to write the right thing. So my first attempt was done. My second attempt was to tone down the sentence and move it to a more appropriate section. I even have a more toned down 3rd attempt ready (but not done to prevent see saw type conflicts). I say that MSNBC (which is part NBC) is a solid source. They do not want to be sued. They write what they believe is true and what they probably confirmed. So I think we should include it but write it in a very matter of fact way and not an exploitive way. KatieHfan (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I went to the linked article. The section headers are "Entertainment, Gossip, Tabloid Tidbits". So essentially they are stating that they are repeating, for strictly entertainment value, gossip reported in tabloids. If we were to take that, and then repeat it on her page without all those understood disclaimers, we would be unethical. Aside from that, I'm not happy with this repetition source. They are not claiming they re-verified the data, in fact, they don't even state who the source was, so it's not clear they even know who is the underlying source. I think we have to not allow this one. Wjhonson (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There may be some opposition because some may not like the fact that she was pregnant (if it is true). I have never seen any quibbles with MSNBC so the sources should be considered reliable enough for wikipedia.

The next issue is what to include. I want to include information but I don't want to smear Katie Holmes. So I propose an even more watered down version stating that she was previously linked to Chris Klein and then include a small note in the references of an MSNBC report. That way, the sentence doesn't appear in the main part of the article. I have seen this done elsewhere. KatieHfan (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiding it in a footnote really isn't the solution.[12] In any event, the MSNBC page says "A spokesperson for Holmes says the Enquirer story is false". Gimmetrow 20:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Citing this tidbit to MSNBC would be non-standard. MSNBC states themselves, that they are repeating something from the National Enquirer. Citing here, solely to MSNBC gives the false impression that MSNBC verified down to the original source which they obviously did not. All they are doing, is repeating something from an unreliable source. Repetition of the claim of an unreliable source, in a reliable source, does not confer reliability of the claim. The reliable source must make a relatively clear assertion or inference that they verified the claim. Wjhonson (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding: Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). Are we saying absolutely no blogs, even well-established blogs published by known academics? What if the scholar is quoting a book to which I don't have ready access? What if the scholar is providing bibliographic info for the bio? Can we not even list the blog entry in our own sources list? Might there be exceptions in which WP:IAR could be invoked? Thanks. HG | Talk 09:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be some guide for the exercise of discretion. If that is the only justification for removal, then, personally, I think it would never be appropriate to do this without a discussion at AfD. Obviously, if we are removing it for a direct violation of other provisions of BLPO, then the existing policy holds--this is just in case the removal is justified by borderline notability plus the request. Such can never be an emergency. I think the language John just inserted and SV removed was a good first attempt at improving the wording (a "reasonable" request) DGG (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

I saw this:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. -- Jimmy Wales"

Note that he said "this is true of ALL information" -- which means that every bit of unattributed material should be removed aggressively, not just controversial material on a living person. Although he says it is "particularly" true in that case, that does not negate the first part. Does this mean this should be pursued for every single bit of potentially dubious information on the encyclopedia and that ideally this strictness of BLP should apply universally to every single article on the Wikipedia? mike4ty4 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Following discussion (started here), the "notable for one event" section was felt to be an inclusion criteria more suited to the inclusion guideline rather than content policy. The section was moved. It has now been moved back. I feel there is room for discussion on this issue. I'm putting a merge tag on it, which will direct discussion to the inclusion guideline talkpage: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#One_Event_merge SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 12:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to encourage others to join the discussion of the proposed merge linked above. Also noting that the

WP:BLPN. Avb

22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

PS Perhaps this has some bearing on the confusion I think this may have caused. Avb 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a minor content dispute at the above article, regarding the use of the word "homophobic" in reference to Card. A link to the discussion thus far can be found here. I find the term itself quite incendiary in a BLP, even when sourced, but especially when it's only sourced (as it is) to an opinion piece from Salon.com. I'm of the opinion that if the article clearly elucidates his views through his own writings, and secondary sources reporting on his writings, that the reader should be left to judge whether or not these views constitute "homophobia." We've agreed that seeking an outside view from the regulars of this board is the best course of action here. Thanks in advance, and best regards, Bellwether ^B_C 21:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You might want to take this to

the biographies of living persons noticeboard, which is the place to seek assistance regarding issues with specific biographies. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

21:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of contact information states "Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted." Maybe an explanation of the exceptions is warranted? Picaroon (t) 03:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm writing in response to having the link to the above website removed from the respective pages of Joe McGann , Paul McGann , Mark McGann, and Stephen McGann. I run this site with the full knowledge and co-operation of the brothers. I make no money from it and it carries no advertising, it is purely an information site to keep interested parties updated on the latest projects of all four brothers. I therefore wonder if you would please reconsider your decision to remove the link. Thanks, Micharris (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DGG and Ned, I'm wondering where the idea come from that material available solely from questionable sources is okay in BLPs, if used with caution? [13] I think this must have been added to the policy by mistake, because it really goes against the spirit of the policy, as well as WP:V. Do you mean if it's entirely harmless or something like that? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The following restriction - "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" appears to me to be a tad excessive. I see no reason why we cannot just rely on a usual reliable source requirements without this extra restriction.

As one example, in articles on rabbis associated with an organization, we generally use the organization's website or bulletin for information about the rabbi's activities in the organization, much as an article on an academic would use bio information from a university web site (and an article on a company executive might use some company information). This is so even though we wouldn't use such sources if the information seemed defamatory, derogatory, embarassing, excessive, or otherwise questionable. There is a class of "self-published" sources that are typically used to fill details, relied on for general information but not for potentially derogatory information etc. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Those websites wouldn't necessarily be regarded as self-published, though. By self-published, we mean that an individual, or a very small, informal group of individuals, has published something on their own e.g. a blog, with no oversight of any kind, no fact-checking process, no professional or third-party input. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not restrictive, but expansive, to explain why certain otherwise inadmissible sources can be used reliably. As User:Shirahadasha says, we can use, but we screen and use intelligently, and take account of possible excess and lack of objectivity. But there are some distinction. The bios at some places are composed by the PR department, and are not necessarily to be taken at face value. At an academic site, there can be an informal description of someone's career, sometimes self-prepared sometimes prepared administratively, that is subject to puffery. There will usually also be a formal CV, and the facts in that can be taken as reliable--almost always. I have seen some things needing thought--people claiming or implying professor when the actual position is lecturer or clinical professor, and published papers that are not necessarily peer-reviewed, and books authored which may be only edited--and i am sure there are equivalent problems in other professions. But in general such vita are quasi-official. DGG (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It helps if you look to the reason behind the rules. The point is credibility. What is the editorial process? Is there a conflict of interest? What the New York Times claims about itself and what my blog claims about the New York Times are both suspect, but for different reasons. Ask: Is it reasonable to rely on this source for this claim? WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a reasonable response. In my opinion there are occasions when a blog post can be a credible source. We should be able to use our judgement. The great big honking never in the sentence above just leads our more unreflective members to override any nuanced discussion.

talk

) 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a very bad requirement, but unfortunately has significant support among people here, even as thousands of editors don't follow it. The point should be credibility, but is not now. The personal website of John Smith's mother is a better source for his birthday than the Chicago Tribune, but unfortunately some editors still resist the idea that expert websites should be used for non-controversial, non-contentious data, even prefering no cite at all. The goal behind the sentence is good. The rigidity is way beyond excessive. 2005 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

Does BLP provide an exemption from the

From the BLP policy "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." If you need help, you can bring the matter to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.--agr (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike, you can remove clear BLP violations as many times as you like, but it would be best if you asked an admin to take a look just to prevent 3RR reports, and to sort the situation out so the material doesn't keep on being restored. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see User:Carcharoth/Featured articles needing regular updates#Living people biographies (80) for a list of 80 featured articles on living people. Thought it might be useful to see how well featured articles are handling BLP issues, and also for people to check the articles for BLP problems as well. Carcharoth (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The question of how to handle a person of note who changes gender has been an issue with regards to musician

Thanks to the hard work of several editors, we believe the article is now in good shape, is accurate and meets Wikipedia standards. A request for "Alexander James Adams" is being redirected to the Heather Alexander article, which provides information about the person Heather has become. Ideally, the article would exist under the new identity with the old one redirecting to that, but current Wikipedia does not allow for that.

Given how the Biographies of Living Persons article does not currently offer guidance in editing a biographical article with regards to gender transition, I would like to offer the Heather Alexander article as a model for writing such guidelines. I believe that he will not be the last person of note to undergo such a change, and written suggestions from an official Wikipedia source would provide a big help in editing other articles.

TechBear (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think

boi

02:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks for your expertise, Benjiboi. I was surprised not to find such a policy as part of this project but it is good to know it is part of the Manual of Style. And thanks also for the clean-up of the article in question. TechBear (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it's still a bit wonky but at least better, as the subject continues to produce more music the issues will likely be resolved and gender transitioning can be uncharted territory for all concerned.

boi

20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

JoshuaZ has reverted an edit I made on the page (diffs below). I don't think it's terribly important either way, but worth bringing up here. I changed "The New York Times" to "The Washington Post" in the following hypothetical example:

A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the

New York Times

publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

There is currently a controversy over whether the New York Times properly reported about allegations of a possible affair between John McCain and a lobbyist. The Times has been roundly condemned far and wide, even by its own ombudsman, and McCain has received enormous support. The reasons the Times has been condemned center around the responsible use of information by the Times and the involvement in the story of a private, not public person. (I think even JoshuaZ would agree with this description.) Since the example is meant to help readers understand the difference between covering public and private individuals and since the example is also meant to illustrate use of a responsible source, the new controversy makes it a little problematic. The example predates the February 21 New York Times story and couldn't have been referring to it, but (a) some readers might be confused and more important, (b) some readers will be distracted from the point made, (c) it's even possible that someone might think we were referring to this particular case. Changing to "Washington Post" hurts absolutely no one.

Joshua, being punctilious thinks that my edit may have been

I'm not sure if this has been resolved but the incident is certainly covered well in reliable sources so can be included if reported neutrally and dispassionately.

boi

01:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

Would having the deletion requirements for biography articles of living persons be lower -- much lower than that for other articles, and notability requirements much higher (to ensure to a very high level of certainty there is sufficient verifiable and accurate information to work with) be a good idea? As well as a "delete by default" attitude toward any new living-persons biography? In addition, I think that attack pages, pages that contain nothing but ultra-controversial and especially negative material should be an exemption to the

BLPs that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced are already subject to

general criterion 10). As for differential standards ... there is already a propensity to approach BLP issues relatively aggressively, but I do not feel that an attempt to institutionalise a whole new class of deletion standards would be productive or gain consensus support (an official "delete-by-default" policy for BLPs was suggested and rejected some time ago). – Black Falcon ^(Talk

) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What would it be impossible to try to discuss and debate to the point where consensus support could be obtained? I'd like to see the reasoning behind not accepting the "delete by default" policy, and see if it was sound or there might still be points that are sufficiently arguable to once again thrust it into the fires of debate. mike4ty4 (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

the reason for not adopting it is that it would be used excessively., We have enough problems with that already just dealing with admins. Is there some particular problem which you think this has caused? DGG (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

However, Jimmy Wales has said, "zero information is preferable to misleading or false information". So how does that jive with all of this? That's where my reasoning for the "delete-by-default"/"tough notability" thing came from. Although I suppose you could argue that "yes, that is so, but it is not preferable to accurate and true information". Also, as perhaps an aside, I have a question about this: It has been said that bad material about living people should be removed aggressively. So why does this not (or why should it not) give ordinary members the right to "remove"

WP:BLANK is only a guideline, not a policy, and as is said in the tag, guidelines need to be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Since immediate removal of this material is required by policy and policy trumps guidelines, I'd definitely say that qualifies as an exception. mike4ty4 (talk

) 21:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So would someone's interpretations of that law, if they are based on taking it to the letter, be acceptable on WP even if they did not come from a lawyer or the person was unable to afford one? I'm not sure how far the "Wikipedia shouldn't be treated as legal advice" crap goes, and I don't think it goes this far: the more restrictivist leaning the better, since only less harm can come from having less bad material. mike4ty4 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Many editors don't know it, but the

What is the current situation with that? Please inform me in detail as to what the current consensus is.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP says: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles." What, exactly, are you unclear about?--agr (talk

) 00:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it quite clear: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space." -- Tyrenius (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What I meant to highlight was that the talk pages of BLPs have the "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons" on them, whereas the talk pages of non-BLPs don't, even though their content could still be BLP-related.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, any page has to adhere to this policy, just like any article has to adhere to all content policies we have. Not explicitly writing that on every single talk page doesn't mean we don't have to follow the rules, of course. --Conti|✉ 19:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, it is BLP material that is covered by BLP policy, regardless of the article it is located in. BLP policy does not apply to non-BLP material, as that is beyond the scope of the policy. mike4ty4 (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You said sourced, so then it would no longer be a candidate for immediate removal any more, at least if the sourcing is good. Whether or not it is kept beyond that or ultimately still removed depends on how well it holds against other policies and guidelines. You also said non-BLP articles, but it's still BLP material so it still falls under the scope of the BLP policy. mike4ty4 (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is in bold, in the second paragraph. I don't particularly like this phrasing, as it implies no discussion should ever take place subsequently, when it could and probably should, to prevent repeat occurances and increase understanding of the policy, particularly among newer editors. Any ideas for rewording?

It's meant to place the burden of responsibility on editors supporting the inclusion of contentious material, but I agree that it doesn't convey the sentiment very well. Perhaps the simplest option would be to remove the "and without discussion" part... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've changed it - if anyone can come up with a better way to get the meaning across succinctly then feel free to suggest something.

☎

21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was also meant to say the deleting editor should not wait for a response on the talk page; maybe put back "without waiting for further discussion"?--agr (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the "without waiting for further discussion" language. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that ArnoldReinhold's formulation is preferable. The benefit of inclusion of this clause is to make it clear that opposing editors cannot simply revert removal on the grounds that there is ongoing discusion, or there needs to be a discussion. Removal first. This is longstanding and the new form of words is an improvement. I have made the change. BCST2001 (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Does "supporting the inclusion of controversial material" include (even if unintentionally) failing to remove such material (as opposed to adding or arguing in favor of such material) because the person glancing over it did not see it as controversial? mike4ty4 (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a problem with the Eliot Spitzer page regarding a breaking story. So far, the people editing the page seem to have done a good job in getting adequate sourcing. However, there has been a discussion started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikinews vs Wikipedia - the Spitzer example regarding how to deal with such potentially controversial and emotional subjects during the period when the controversial material is still "breaking news". I myself have just recently had to revert vandalism to the article. Would there be any possibility of possibly establishing a guideline or policy relating how to deal with such instances in the future? John Carter (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As Jimmy Wales' "Godking" status wanes, and rightly so, the reliance of this policy page on Jimbo quotes should substantially decline. The amount of Argumentum ad Jimbonem here is excessive. Mike R (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The reliance of this policy page on Jimbo's thoughts should be zero. He's been more or less caught with unclean hands once again, proving that bios of non-notable people (people not in paper dictionaries) are a CORE problem of Wikipedia. Just by reason of existence. Just by BEING there, they present an unending source of problems (legal, moral, time, money), and an unending source of temptation for those in power. Thus, I propose (for the zillionth time) that we do away with the damn things. Period. No exceptions except for LIVING people famous/notable enough to be in the Britannica, or some other paper encyclopedia. For dead people, this is not a problem, any trivial person has room in Wikipedia, since it's not paper-- who cares?

And by the way, this proposal will fix the problems with Jimbo's bio, also. None of those bad things need go in, however well sourced. Jimbo's bio just won't exist until he gets famous enough to be up in a paper encyclopedia. Which probably won't happen in his life time anyway. SBHarris 21:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a lovely fantasy but not actually going to happen so is it even worth discussing? --Fredrick day (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, although I can't verify this right now, I am myself virtually certain that Jimbo already does have an entry in a printed encyclopedia or online version of same, or other printed biography. On that basis, the fantasy is also probably based on faulty premises as well. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cite your source (online only doesn't count, since they're all subject to the same living person notability-creep that WP is). And if so, and he's up in paper, no problem, he can stay in the WP. And be subject to the viciscitudes of being hounded by the tabloids. But other less famous people won't be here, and thus they won't be here to tempt people at WP to take cash or sex, to fix up their look. Nor will they be subject to meanspirited editing by anonymous people who have no idea what's it like to be targetted by the press-- until it happens to them. Seriously folks, this is one of two or three major moral/ethical problems facing Wikipedia right now. If you/we screw it up, you/we will deserve what we get. SBHarris 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

well take it to the relevent policy page then. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello? This IS one of those pages. Its THE BLP policy page if there IS one. The BLP rules, which CONSTITUTE the policy, are the main article that this is the TALK page for. Those rules need major modification. We reach concensus for it HERE. SBHarris 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This page mainly cover the how/how not it does not really concern itself too much with the why (at least that's my reading of the page), which is why I'm suggested that you proposal would be more suited to here. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Responding to earlier comments, it is more than presumptuous to demand a person cite a source to justify existing content to fit a policy proposal which doesn't even exist yet, isn't it? Having said that, check the October 2006 Current Biography. Out of idle curiosity, do you have any idea just how many such biographical dictionaries exist? John Carter (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not proposing "biographical dictionaries" or Who's Who or whatever your favorite bio source is. I am proposing paper encyclopedia deliberately so that it limits things to the REALLY famous, and also draws a bright line which is easy. There aren't many of THESE. And they all have strict space problems. Thus, they don't pick semi-notable sports figures, actors, business people, and so on. The Britannica didn't even HAVE living bios until 1911, which was a century and a half after it was founded. And you can bet that those it had were more famous than are 99% of the people bio'd in WP. The other reason to suggest paper, is so we don't get the famous "Clinton" or "Bush" defense of BLP policy. You can still write nasty-but-verifiable things about famous politicians, if that gets you off. And yes, I'll copy this to the PUMP. SBHarris 22:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean like the 1137 encyclopedias that the St. Louis County Library has here? Or the 13,247 encycloepdias that are in the holdings of the various colleges in Missouri here? John Carter (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

what you are suggesting is that we become subservient to the POV of those paper encyclopedia - doesn't the proposal then instantly get run over by WP:NOT (a paper encyclopedia) and various other policies. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea that someone is not notable because they wouldn't be in 1000 page paper encyclopedia is nonsensical. the world is full of mayors, assemblypeople, celebrities and notable professionals that wouldn't be in a paper book. There is no problem now so we don't need a wildly illogical "fix". We aren't made of paper. 2005 (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This would also necessarily mean that no article on any topic could make any statement or reference to a living person not documented in a print encyclopedia. A statement about a living person is a statement about a living person, whether it is contained within a biography on that person, a biography on another person, a history article, a country article, a band article, a list article... Postdlf (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. And as for your mayor, no, your mayor doesn't get to be here. If you want to find out about your city dogcatcher's sex life, however well it may be documented in some local scandle, you'll have to get it some other place than Wikipedia. Same for Jimbo Wales' sex life. Fair enough trade? SBHarris 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I think it's completely absurd and I don't think you're at all properly contemplating the full consequences (either that or you have a skewed concept of how inclusive print encyclopedias are). Basically what you're proposing would decimate a huge portion of Wikipedia content, not just the absurd straw man of a city dogcatcher you propose. I doubt many articles dealing with anything occurring or existing in the past 50 years would remain untouched. Postdlf (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This would be an awful idea; it is unclear what would constitute a person who would be in a paper encyclopedia. And the vast majority of BLPs are perfectly fine. The cliche is throwing the baby out with the bathwater; this would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and then sterilizing the parents. I've suggested before that we consider a specific policy of courtesy deletions for marginal notable people and what might be a reasonable standard for that. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. One standard discussed there is allowing courtesy deletions of someone if they are not a willing public figure. As I note in that essay, Durova has proposed the standard of "delete if deletion is requested and would not be in a paper encyclopedia" - this is a standard which is far weaker than that proposed above and even that does not fit with our current deletion practices in that it would delete many articles which the community has decided are definitely notable enough to keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid problems, wouldn't it be just easier to enforce notability standards to any possibly contentious material? In other words, if

Sounds more than reasonable to me. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Because it's fundamentally corrupting to the organization (as we've seen) and violates the golden rule besides. Somebody gives your chat-logs to the press, and because you've done something interesting or notable with your life, like help found Wikipedia, hey, there they are, on AP news. Non-trivial now? How does that impact your decision to do anything at all for anybody in the public eye, knowing it makes you a public figure and target for a paparazzi stalking and a wiki-bio that stays up forever? Not to mention the fact that endless amounts of spin-doctoring are possible, even with WP:V sources. Read Jimbo's bio if you doubt-- it's a perfect illustrative example. Do you need others? SBHarris 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth? What "organization" is my idea corrupting towards...? You and your example have completely lost me. I'm advocating tightening the BLP screws here so that any negative material needs to be sourced to more than one place, essentially--the event has to be notable in my idea, on it's own. What does this have to do with Jimbo?

t/e

22:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2)Isn't that what we try to do now ? It doesn't work very well --Versageek 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't do that now. Let's say a newspaper like

t/e

22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To Lawrence Cohen: While I don't agree with SBHarris's proposal, I do appreciate where he is coming from. The point I believe he was making in reply to you was that just because several respectable newspapers decide to collectively descend to tabloid sensationalism (as is increasingly the tendency), that does not mean an encyclopedia should include the "facts" in question. As an encyclopedia and a newspaper are two different things, mention in a newspaper, or several newspapers, does not necessarily equate to encyclopedic-ness. Unfortunately, whenever Wikipedia editors wish to include such material, the argument they fall back on is that notability has been established by media coverage. Where I agree with SBHarris is that such coverage does not necessarily mean that material should be included. And in my opinion the example pointed to by SBHarris involving Jimmy Wales is utterly pertinent. BCST2001 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As an idea, not bad. I guess the problem I see is how to define the independent notability of the subject event/activity/story. Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Easy. To do this, all we need to do is change this line in BLP

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research).

To...

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research), or is not itself covered by several non-trivial reliable sources that are independent of each other.

...thats it.

But, in the hypothetical case in question, the possible resignation based on sex scandal is covered in several reliable sources. It would also possibly be OR to say that the scandal, given its timing, wouldn't directly relate to your recent press conference, in which you refused to address the issue, cad that you are, directly :). It would also presumably be related to your potential resignation, should that occur. Would the fact that the allegation is the apparent cause for your subsequent actions establish it as being non-trivial enough to be mentioned? By the way, did I mention that I'm generally called a Republican, and that I have never had any reason to have anything against Spitzer? I mention this because Mr. Harris seems to possibly be failing AGF in this matter, by his earlier comments. John Carter (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The

t/e

23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea in principle, but I'm not sure if this would work out in practice. This basically allows anyone to remove sourced contentious material. Shouldn't we at least encourage our editors to search for more sources first? We usually cite one source for most statements, after all, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot more of them out there. And what would constitute "several" sources, anyways? Two? Three? Half a dozen? --Conti|✉ 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Several, at least to me, generally means three or more. If a given negative fact is that notable or important, it will get wide media attention. If a fact isn't important enough for more than one valid source to care, why should we?

t/e

23:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, if a negative (or positive, for that matter) fact is notable enough, there should be enough sources about it. As I said, I like the idea in principle, I can just imagine editors abusing this new bit of policy in various ways. Someone could go around and remove everything negative that has two or less sources, without even bothering to look whether there are more around, for example. With the current wording, someone could argue that three sources aren't enough. Someone could claim that various sources that are based on the same news agency article are not "independent of each other". Someone could simply define things he doesn't want in an article as contentious and remove them. But who knows, maybe I'll just see things in a way too negative light. --Conti|✉ 23:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

People will always try to game something, it's our nature. If anyone acts stupid over current BLP, maybe this future BLP, or anything in-between, they can be dealt with on a case by case basis for disruption. As long as we define the threshold for "event/fact" inclusion, and it could be as simple as two independent sources for negative and contentious material, it would cut down on a lot of crap.

t/e

23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it would, yes. Just out of curiosity, do you have any real example where we would keep information under our current policy, but remove it under the new one? And could we add something like "Please check whether there are additional sources not currently used in the article before removing sourced, contentious material." to the proposed wording? --Conti|✉ 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification of how the proposal is supposed to be implemented. I don't have any real reservations about it on the basis of the clarification, provided it receive sufficient input from people who know more about this sort of thing than I do. But, under the circumstances, maybe it might make sense to add some content to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event section as well, possibly renaming it, as that might be used as a way to dodge the proposal. And the numerical definition of "multiple" should be addressed as well. I'd say two independent sources might be sufficient, but that's just my opinion. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Semantics, really, on the number of sources. "More than one independent source" or "multiple" or "several" can all work, but this to me feels like a fairly big possible change, since it's applying notability standards (however barebones and threadbare by design) on events reported on for an already notable topic. I think the idea will help kill a lot of crap in BLPs. It's just a question of whats that minimum magic threshold.

t/e

23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, I'm not sure if I like this or not. Do you have specific examples of facts that would be included now in articles that would not be under your policy? I'm having trouble seeing what this would do without concrete examples. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

<<< I am not sure if this would work as presented, but it is worth exploring. I have seen cases of over-deference to a single source, on the basis that it is verifiable and published in a respected source. This may work OK for non-contentious materials, but may not work for all content. BLP, needs to be taken into account alongside our other content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and in particular

I believe Lawrence Cohen's proposal is really already covered by WP:BLP and related policies, which requires contentious material to be sourced, and requires any BLP material in BLP entries to be relevant to the notability of the article subject. The real problem is that sourced contentious material is still not always appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia: respectable newspapers do not always behave respectably, and the problem is not that one newspaper might go off on a tabloid tangent—it is more likely the herd mentality that will mean non-encyclopedic sensationalistic material will be reported in respectable newspapers. The problem is that Wikipedia editors who are inclined to include such material believe that sourcing establishes notability, whereas in fact according to policy the material must not only be sourced but relevant to the notability of the subject. Focusing on sourcing as a way of legitimating inclusion opens a door wider that needs to be narrowed. BCST2001 (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No. To make our own decisions about what constitutes "respectable" coverage when major newspapers have already decided something is worth reporting on is to essentially engage in selective censorship based on our personal POVs. This would massively violated

WP:NOTCENSORED. JoshuaZ (talk

) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of WP:BLP by JoshuaZ and Black Falcon is, I believe, incorrect, and is exactly the problem that requires solving. WP:BLP certainly requires that contentious material be relevant to the notability of the subject, however editors refuse to acknowledge this aspect of policy, resulting in conflict whenever such material needs to be removed. It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to refuse to include tabloid material, because Wikipedia is not a tabloid. BCST2001 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What about when tabloids pick up a story from blogs, and it is then passed on to AP when the principals won't or can't deny the facts? [14]. Notability to the subject is, of course, in the mind of the beholder. That's exactly the problem here. I say it's best to bury it all. But the people on WP want to have it both ways, and that's how we got here. SBHarris 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

BCST, there is a difference between "non-tabloid material" and "notable topic"; as for lack of acknowledgement of policy on the part of some editors, the solution is education and enforcement, not additional rule-creep. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

BCST, I'd appreciate if you didn't try to beat up so many

Bahá'u'lláh is POV pure and simple. JoshuaZ (talk

) 00:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If the AP themselves pick up a story, irregardless of the ultimate source, it's probably of some merit. Do you have an example like this that doesn't swirl around our internal nonsense?

t/e

00:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your sentiment, SBHarris, there is no way that the number of biographies will be limited to what one would find in a paper encyclopedia, nor should it be. That would be to curtail the great advantage of Wikipedia. Yes, that is also why Wikipedia has problems with BLPs, but it is not an unsolvable problem. It just requires the will of Wikipedia editors to solve it, that is, to find ways to include enormous amounts of information that will never be collated in this way elsewhere, without then descending into tabloidism. That is the challenge of WP:BLP, and a great tool in achieving it is requiring enforcement of policy: material must be encyclopedic (this is meaningful, even where notability is set lower than for paper encyclopedias); WP is not a tabloid (this is not a "subjective" statement: it is policy); undue weight must not be given to trivial BLP incidents; and contentious BLP material must be relevant to the notability of the subject. It is all there in policy—the question is that of the desire of editors to stick to it. BCST2001 (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, please separate the tabloid vs. "true notability" aspects of this for me. As an example. Note that it is self recursive, since the claim is that Jimbo fixed up a BLP for somebody with a real COI. If you read the Rachel Marsden bio, you'll see that it says that it's just routine for Jimbo to personally be investigating people's bio problems. I'd go and put a ^{[citation needed]} tag on it, but I think it's locked. [15] SBHarris 00:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, I have to say that it seems to me you haven't read what I've written. I do not speak about "including material from tabloids," but rather about material from respectable sources which is nevertheless tabloidish. The attitude that WP:BLP "is not holy writ" is concerning. BCST2001 (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is a foundation principle: we "must ... represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Our personal judgments about what is or is not "tabloidish" do not override that policy. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That Wikipedia is not a tabloid is not simply a matter of personal judgment: it is a policy that must be upheld. The notion that you can avoid "personal judgments" by simply relying on sourcing is false. I would not use the term "personal judgment," but simply judgment. Editing requires judgment. Even the NPOV policy you refer to requires judgment: it requires judging what is "fair," what is "bias," what is "significant." Judgment is necessary, and judgment about what material is relevant to the notability of a living person is part of what it is our responsibility to judge. Judgment about how not to be a tabloid is part of what it is our responsibility to judge. Abdicating that responsibility in favour of blanket inclusion is itself a judgment, but one that editors should strive to rise above. I believe this is the meaning of multiple sections of WP:BLP, and the way it needs to be interpreted in conjunction with other policies. BCST2001 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Trying to paint my position as being "in favour of blanket inclusion" is an blatant

WP:NOR. Black Falcon ^(Talk

) 01:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Again no. You persist in these strawmen Deciding what constitutes tabloidish information is essence of letting our POVs decide what matters. It is no different than someone deciding that it would be wrong to have pictures of Mohammad. If major newspapers decide something is notable about someone we are not in a position to disagree. If you don't like that go over to

Wikinfo where they write things in a sympathetic fashion. JoshuaZ (talk

) 01:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe it is a straw man argument at all. You seem to think it is impossible to make decisions, but that is what policy requires, and not just NPOV but BLP, of which this is the talk page. I don't know what you mean by, "It is no different than someone deciding that it would be wrong to have pictures of Mohammad." I don't see the connection. And I disagree with this: "If major newspapers decide something is notable about someone we are not in a position to disagree." We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and we can make our own, collective, decision, about what is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, and what is not. I believe WP:BLP requires making these decisions as a matter of course. BCST2001 (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Up to a point; we minimize decision making based on policies like WP:N and WP:V. Once a topic is deemed notable we include material based on issues such as weight; but weight is based primarily on the fraction and quality of reliable sources, not our personal judgement about what we think in our ideal world newspapers and others would be reporting on. If we did that, I'd start by nominating Britney Spears for deletion and work my way down. And I'm dissappointed that you don't see the Mohammad connection because you strike me as a somewhat bright person. Simply put, certain people want to remove well-sourced content about Mohammad because it will cause people anguish and grief- that's censorship. You want to remove content about living people because it might possible cause harm even when that content is already well-sourced. The concerns are essentially the same and the motivations isomorphic; the difference is that you use a moral system that places strong emphasis on BLPs and not much on Iconoclasm. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not "personal judgment," collective judgment. Which is why Britney Spears is unlikely to be deleted in the next 1000 years. If the community decides to exclude pictures of Mohammad, then it will be removed, but I don't think they have a strong basis in policy and aI think it is very unlikely to occur. WP:BLP, on the other hand, exists, has community support, and requires enforcement. As does policy about being an encyclopedia, not being a tabloid, and not giving undue weight to trivial negative material. This is an important difference. Thanks for the compliment. BCST2001 (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, so you are arguing what precisely? That BLP mandates that we remove material that as a community we consider to be tabloidish even if it is very well-sourced? What text in BLP do you think does that? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am arguing that all policies need to be enforced, and that in some cases sourced tabloidish material should be excluded from BLPs. WP:BLP states that contentious material must be sourced, encyclopaedic and relevant. BCST2001 (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, so what is the claim here? That tabloidish information should be removed and that we should decided what is tabloidish rather than our sources? Or is the claim that we should decide relevance rather than let reliable sources do it for us. Is it some combination thereof? And in any event, where in BLP is this written? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The entirety of

Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy

is relevant, and in particular the following sentences:

• “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.”
• “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.”
• "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it important to the article, and has it been published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out."

The latter, the example concerning the messy divorce, is instructive: it is explicitly saying that contentious or tabloidish material which is not both sourced and "important to the article," should be excluded. What does "important to the article" mean? It means relevant to the subject's notability. Thus one point made by the two examples is that the case of a politician may be different to the case of somebody who is not a politician. Why? Because the community judges that an affair which a politician has is relevant to their notability, because it is a factor voters consider important. Whereas the messy divorce of a moviestar is more likely to be unimportant, because it is about spreading titillation, is sensationalistic, or is tabloidish. These are the questions requiring collective judgment, but it is a judgment made by the Wikipedia community based on policy. Thus, for example, whether the sensationalistic material involving Jimmy Wales should be included or excluded more or less comes down to whether you see him more as a politician or a movie star. If you think he is an important figure whose personal ethics are very important to the world, you will favour inclusion. If you see him as simply another public figure, then presumption in favour of privacy means that sensationalistic, tabloidish contentous material should be left out. BCST2001 (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There are four problems with that at least. First in regard to the quote "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." - completely agreed but notice the important phrase "primary vehicle" if major newspapers or many many sources have included something that doesn't make us the primary source. Second, I find your comparison between politicians and movie starts hard to understand; indeed; I at least don't consider whether a politician has been divorced or not at all relevant to their job as a politician; in contrast, movie starts entire lives surround and exist for the purpose of entertaining people. So if we should not include the messy divorce it should be on the movie star (this sort of disagreement is precisely why we shouldn't be taken out very well sourced content without strong reasons). Third, relevant to the subject's notability is to a large extent subjective; that's why BLP says that it is has to be important to the article; that's not as strong a claim as relevant to the subjects notabilty. Furthermore, even if I bought into your claim that we meant relevant to the subject's notability, notability is determined by

WP:BIO, so if we have a multiple non-trivial sources that connect the person to the relevant detail then it is hard to not see how it is not relevant to the subject's notability. Fourth the Jimmy Wales example is a pretty bad example and in fact demonstrates precisely the sort of slippery slope that worries me about BLP-penumbra issues that we seem to be increasingly sliding down. The recent controversy of Jimbo was noteworthy in the context of what he does; the primary reason the matter came up was because of the COI issues. We can't simply say something like "oh, well this isn't connected because it happens to involve aspects of his private life" And even if this were another public figure, the best way to tell again whether such information should be included is whether other sources have choosen to do so that are not tabloids. If they aren't tabloids and it is included then the information is almost by definition not tabloidish. Indeed, this example in particular is interesting because it hasn't been covered in classic tabloids at all but has been covered internationally in multiple major newspapers and other sources. This demonstrates quite neatly precisely the problem with letting our subjective notions of what is tabloidish determine content. JoshuaZ (talk

) 02:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, all I can say is that I think you are wrong in just about everything you say:

• I think you're hanging an awful lot on the phrase "primary vehicle," as though we can do all those things so long as we aren't the "primary vehicle."
• Whether you consider a politician's divorce relevant isn't the point; it is what the community considers that matters, and I think it is quite clear why a politician was chosen for the example in WP:BLP.
• The fact that movie stars "exist" to "entertain people" does not at all make their messy divorces relevant. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BLP. Movie stars' job is to make movies. The attitude that their private lives is necessarily public property is the definition of the tabloid attitude.
• Jimmy Wales: it is your judgment that the matter came up because of COI. I disagree: I think it came up because of two motivations: to spread titillation and to spread negative contentious claims about him. I don't believe the story has much of anything to do with his reasons for notability, but obviously other people disagree about this. The community will decide, hopefully based on policy. This is not the place to argue this point, however.
• The notion that if a newspaper isn't a tabloid then what it publishes is by definition not tabloidish is totally false.

Your fundamental point, to which you return over and over, is that this is all "subjective," but it is simply not correct to conflate "community judgment" with "subjective personal judgment." I reiterate: judgment is necessary and precisely what policy requires. BCST2001 (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

While it is undeniable that some judgment is necessary, judgment that deviates from sources should be minimised. Our judgments should be based in sources, not independent of them. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "minimised," nor do I know what you mean by "based" in sources, nor do I know what the policy basis for your comments is. Judgment is judgment: WP:BLP gives you the basis on which to make WP:BLP decisions. That basis includes what I have stated above, which includes that material must not only be sourced but important and relevant. In short, there are grounds on which tabloidish and contentious material should be excluded from BLP entries, even where this material is sourced. BCST2001 (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what Falcon is saying should be quite clear, we don't want a situation where we let our personal moral codes come into play in what Wikipedia content is included anymore than absolutely necessary. To do otherwise risks massively violating NPOV. Now, to respond to your earlier comments: As to my comment about "primary vehicle"- those words are in there. If you havde another explanation of why they are there then feel to give it. Frankly, if anything, Wikipedia helps people to give NPOV descriptions of controversies and can frequently make people look better as a result (for example to return to the recent matter of Jimbo Wales, an NPOV description of events makes Jimbo look better than what much of the coverage was). As to the movie star matter; I might be wrong about that; if we had a hypothetical but to my mind at least a movie star is not just a talented actor but one who actively engages in self-promotion including details about their personal life. If we had a hypothetical movie star who really tried to keep their private life private, you might have an argument there; but indeed, this detail isn't terribly relevant to Falcon or me as it is to you; if the star's private life is in the

Washington Post then we probably should. This notion of why movie stars exist is only an issue if we believe in your sort of attitude that we should decide relevancy (and indeed, in some cases such as for some politicians you may actually be including more details than I would because a single mention of a messy divorce of a politician in a barely reliable source might be included in your interpretation where it would likely not be in mine). Next, as to your assertion that things can be tabloidish without being in tabloids; this only works if we use our own subjective interpretation of what constitutes something being tabloidish. We don't need that and that simply leads to subjective argumentation and injection of POVs. Something is tabloidish if it only shows up in gossip rags and tabloids. If major sources cover it then it isn't. Finally, as to the matter with Jim; that's a very nice idea except that it suffers from a variety of flaws, most serious that many of the reliable sources explicitly discussed the COI accusations element. Now, given that it might be (indeed, I would not be surprised) the amount of coverage was in part motivated by the salacious element of the supposed scandal, but that doesn't mean we can pretend that it had nothing to do with Jim's work on Wikipedia and Wikimedia; he met her in a context related to Wikipedia- noted by multiple very reliable sources- and he was accused of COI issues on that matter on Wikipedia- again, multiple reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk

) 03:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the end, everything you are saying comes down to the word "subjective," and you constantly refer to "personal" judgment. I think this argument is incorrect and makes no sense. The community judges, as it should, as it is required to do, required by policy. It does not surprise me that we disagree about this, given that on every BLP debate I have been involved with, you have been in favour of inclusion whenever I have been opposed. I believe it is important for readers of this talk page to know that your interpretation of the policy is disputed and, in my view, fails to recognise what the policy in fact states. BCST2001 (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks aside, I don't see much content in your above comment; of course my opinion is disputed; you're here. And furthermore, BLP issues are a very controversial issue; it would be hard to find anyone who doesn't have a view which is "disputed". From your remark above may I assume that you agree with my point about Jimbo? Also, you seem to be missing the point about subjectivity. Ut seems analogous to a classic problem with many variants of postmodernism who say that because their are subjective elements therefore everything is subjective. In your case, it is going from because we have subjective elements it is therefore ok to have as many subjective elements as anyone personally wants even when we have pre-existing objective frameworks like WP:V to handle them. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be a bit circular. You note that the "community judges [as] required by policy", but define policy in terms of what the community judges. Moreover, you seem to place minimal emphasis on the requirements of the NPOV policy. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Black Falcon: My argument is not in the least circular: I do not "define policy in terms of what the community judges." In fact, I believe that the community frequently pays insufficient attention to policy. Judgment is not always correct. But judgment is necessary and should be based on what WP:BLP and other related policies state. Policies provide the framework for judgment. Hopefully the community improves its ability to make judgments as it goes: properly understanding policy is part of that process of improvement. Nor do I "place minimal emphasis" on NPOV. I think it is very important, just as is WP:BLP. There is no contradiction: in fact, the two policies reinforce each other as far as BLP entries are concerned. BCST2001 (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to JoshuaZ: Please don't misunderstand, I wasn't intending an ad hominem attack at all, just a reflection on our different positions. Regarding "subjective": you miss my point: it has nothing to do with having "as many subjective elements as anyone personally wants"; it is rather, as I have stated numerous times, a matter of collective judgment—not mine, not yours, but ours. There is nothing "postmodern" about it. BCST2001 (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay. Here's a major news story about the foundation/Jimbo taking MONEY to fix up bios. [16] Now, should it go into his biography? And climbing up to the metaproblem of how much trouble WP's BLP policies are creating, are you all with me, yet? There's no "titillation" or sex, here. Just plain old allegation of something that looks a lot like corruption of the plain and simple kind. So. By your own rules, we have two independent reports (by different people) of the same type of activity on two different occasions. And that activity is: fixing up BLPs for special consideration. Do you need a site for this synthesis, so you don't violate WP:NOR? LOL. I think I can get you that, but do you really need it to see the point of how corrupting, how intrinsically horrid, this whole business is? Just pull the plug, people. You don't need to be in the business of writing about semi-notable people who'd rather be left alone without their underwear hanging out on eBAY. It just results in YOUR underwear hanging out on eBAY. Because the laws of karma state that what goes around, COMES around. SBHarris 03:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if more news sources cover the allegations, it should be mentioned.

t/e

13:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think understanding the idea is difficult. The question is whether it is a good idea. I have given reasons above why I consider it has some drawbacks and, more importantly, fails to address the real BLP issues. BCST2001 (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We have

WP:UNDUE to justify the removal of negative material that is overrepresented -- we don't need to add further confusion about the topic of notability by declaring that it now applies to some article content. Black Falcon ^(Talk

) 00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

UNDUE has limitations on it's use. This takes it even further, to codify that non-notable "bad" events in a person's life aren't reposted here because some random otherwise fine RS decided to report them.

t/e

00:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and I disagree with the proposal. As I see it, it is similar to previous proposals to adopt a "sympathetic point of view" for BLPs instead of "neutral point of view". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not SPOV, though. It's exactly what we have now, but requiring more than one source for any negative statements, so that we don't parrot and reprint every random negative thing that one finds in a lone RS. This would help to clean up all the horrible "Controversy" sections all over.

t/e

03:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we would also have to require multiple sources for positive and neutral facts as well if we want the articles balanced. Mr.Z-man 19:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. This is an expansion specifically of

t/e

20:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are supposed to do no harm, but, what does that have to do with keeping articles balanced if any positive fact can be added if its verifiable, but negative facts need multiple reliable secondary sources? Currently people misuse

WP:V to include every bit of tabloid gossip. On the other hand, people could use something like this to whitewash articles. I think simply requiring a reliable source for all contentious statements in a BLP should be adequate. Mr.Z-man

02:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's not good then. We already need to be very careful to balance NPOV with BLP-penumbra issues. Adopting this would make that more difficult. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is adding anything beyond what we have in UNDUE. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

UNDUE allows for one-off negative facts and claims to be in BLPs if simply "sourced". This makes it so you can't do that, unless more than one independent source covered the allegations. It's a small change, but if a contentious or negative thing about a BLP wasn't picked up by more than one one source, why should we include it? 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'd think under most circumstances if it had a single source we would remove it given UNDUE/BLP concerns. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd think so, but not the case as a rule. Some examples of things allowed under BLP currently:

• John_Melendez#The_Howard_Stern_Show, where in the "According to the New York Post" section, we have two BLPs slagging each other. Only one source.
• Great example: Alison Weir, the last bit, "An article in the Northwestern Chronicle". This is a common thing. We can introduce negative single-sourced commentary by saying so and so said so. The preceding paragraph as well, with comments by Weir.
• James_Philip#Controversy. Allegations of racism, one source.

These would all require a second source under the new idea. Thats it--this way, we're not just parroting any and all single-sourced grievances that any RS happens to dish out.

t/e

03:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've removed the section from the Weir article since it is a tiny extremist source but I'd very surprised if there isn't much better criticism of Weir out there (I seem to remember their being an NYT article about her and her organization a while back. I'll try to track that down). I'm not sure about touching the other two; I saw the James Phillip matter and I'd be surprised if there aren't any other sources. As to Melendex, I don't know enough about that example (I have no idea if it got covered elsewhere) and in the Melendez example there's the additional issue that he seems to thrive on controversy. I have no idea at the moment if that is more of an argument for inclusion or exclusion; and there is the additional issue that the Post is barely a reliable source (it is indeed a tabloid). I can see why you might want this sort of thing to be formally acknowledged. I need to think about this more. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ that it depends a good deal on the source. A single NYT article, or one in an equivalently reliable magazine, is enough source for any allegation; the Post is another matter entirely. for that matter, I'd be reluctant to put in something really negative and unusual on the sole basis of two tabloids from the same chain. This is why fixed rules about 1 or 2 sources are not a good idea--certainly not if we put them into anything as rigid as policy. DGG (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an existing RfC over at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desi_Arnaz&diff=198326795&oldid=197729277

I don't have the reference material at hand tonight but I am 'assuming' for the moment that the information in the edit is true.

Question one - how does one decide if the episode described is 'important enough' to be included in the article?

Question two - should the information be left in or taken out of the article in the interim?

I would appreciate feedback on this. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first this should be at the BLP noticeboard, not here. See

WP:BLPN. That said, I don't see any serious concern since the children are mentioned only in passing in this context. I'm not sure that the incident justifies mention at all though. JoshuaZ (talk

) 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will repost at BLPN. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like people are trying to use this for people that have died or recently died as seen in Talk:Heath Ledger. Since this specifically about the living some feedback on this would be appreciated. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this was proposed at some point, but it makes no sense whatsoever. At least in US law, libel is no longer a consideration. The material still needs to be properly sourced, as everything it wikipedia does, but it follows the ordinary rules. DGG (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

...Though I'd add that the policy still applies until the death is confirmed by reliable sources. Even once the subject is dead, BLP still applies to anyone who had a hand in their death (murderers, etc), so there would be some overlap regarding the means and manner of death. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But Heath Ledgers death is VERY confirmed so why is BLP being used there? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a really good question. It's not in the policy, so it really shouldn't apply to that article - though common sense,

WP:V, and all the other relevant policies should still apply as normal. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Can the above be stated in the BLP article? I know its redundant but this article shows that it is necessary. Secondly can someone please remove the template from the Heath Ledger talk page since I have tried and not been successful since I was the only one seeing that this policy does not apply. Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this for a easy solution?

Do you think it will work? Any suggestions? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd amend it a little, thus:

-I like it; though it states the obvious (

Cool so what should we call the template? BLPdead? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd modify the first sentence to read, "While

Biographies of living persons policies do not apply directly to the subject of this article due to the death of the subject, this article may have content that directly relates to other living persons, such as friends and family." Oh, and widen the box. Pairadox (talk

) 07:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I kinda liked the explanation of why it didn't apply. But that might just be me. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe without the bolding; I just did that to show what was being added. Personally, I found the "because they're dead" to be redundant (and kinda tacky), but that's just me. I would hope they already know the person is dead and reading that message isn't the first they learn of it. Haven't they read the article yet? Pairadox (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

ok removed the extra bolding. Any other inputs? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

None from me. Pairadox (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok created the template at {{

Somebody has now nominated the template

the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thanks :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk

) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have voted to delete and as a supporter of BLP I'll explain why. I feel having this sort of template is a problematic precedent. WP:BLP currently, as it stands, applies to only living people. Yet it's possible that any biographical article could refer to a living person, whether it's an article on someone who died a year ago or 1000 years ago. I understand the rationale, but I feel the better way to approach this is to repurpose BLP to be an all-encompassing anti-libel policy that is mandatory for all biographical articles. Which would mean a heck of a lot of these banners would have to be added to talk pages, but BetacommandBot is going to be looking for something to do after the end of March, so it can always be reprogrammed to add it to all the articles. (That actually isn't meant to be as saracastic as it might sound - regardless of the general opinion regarding the bot, there's no doubt it's effective in placing content on massive numbers of article pages.) 23skidoo (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In practice I think its useful. agreed, BLP does not apply to the subject of the article of someone who is not alive. It applies to still-living people mentioned in the article, but that is true to all articles in WP--the reason why we need this template is because those ignorant of the BLP policy keep challenging it. But there is no reason to treat bio articles other than that with any special reticence or precaution besides our usual policies. In the US , libel is inapplicable--and i think I remember that the reason was so that historical (encyclopedic) truth could be debated without hindrance eventually--a good reason. NPOV requires equal treatment of all subjects. DGG (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about the Blpo template, which I just added to

I don't know. Can you be sued for defaming the name of a dead person? I thought that it was only about those that were alive hence the distinction. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Any objections? BLP as I understand applies to any and all visible pages.

Is a mere epithet used on a project or talk page a violation of BLP? An epithet is completely different from libel or defamation, and I cannot see where BLP policy covers epithets. Is it really a BLP violation to call a public person a dipshit on a talk page? Just wondering. Mike R (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's wrong to disparage a BLP on an article, a talk page,

t/e

17:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to the principle itself, but I've shortened the sentence to its simpler (original) form. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the disconnect just now. The non-article space section down below was full of useless blather. I made it more accurate and to the point. BLP = anywhere, anything, everyone. No action of any sort by anyone from a Board member to Jimbo to the new IP user is ever, ever, never BLP-exempt. That's all we need to convey.

t/e

17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Their families, too, including extended relatives. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:12, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. My father slags me in a BLP article, I expect he'd be blocked. It's zero tolerance for a reason: we don't get sued.

t/e

17:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is good, because my father told me that if I ever have a Wikipedia article, he'd vandalize it. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:18, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I made the wording even simpler and to the point than I think it has ever been from perusing the history:

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Though this policy is written in the context of articles dealing with Biographies of Living Persons, it may be applied to and enforced upon any edit or action on any visible page of any type performed by any user in the English Wikipedia website(s), http://en.wikipedia.org.

Simple, bulletproof, accurate. Nothing we can conceivably do here is BLP-exempt, and no user from the WMF board on down are BLP exempt.

I think we should keep the focus on content (i.e. "any page) as opposed to behaviour ("any edit or action"). When it comes down to it, there's little difference in terms of application, since a policy that applies to "any page" automatically applies to "any edit or action" made to those pages; however, it makes BLP sound less like an extension of

WP:VAND and more like a content policy. Black Falcon ^(Talk

) 17:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Would this wording apply to any visible page anywhere on http://en.wikipedia.org, including all visible logs for pages (moves, deletions) and users (rename log, block logs?

t/e

17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think so, but "any page" could be changed to "all visible pages" to ensure that there is no confusion... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The one thing I'm concerned with on that wording (pedantic, sorry) is that it can be taken to not mean logs and edit histories, which is what I mean by "any". If, for example, someone were to delete a page on a non-notable BLP with a summary of "Delete wanker" that's a gross BLP vio. Or, if someone were to block a confirmed BLP editor with a "troll" comment, that needs to be covered.

t/e

17:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This worries me a lot. If someone wants to cite David Irving would calling Irving an unreliable source without any citation now be not ok under this wording? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We can't insult BLPs, ever. Simply saying a journalist or author is unreliable, for example, if Google found it, could harm their good name. Whomever it is.

t/e

17:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute... do you mean editors wouldn't be able discuss the reliability of a source written by a living person under this new wording? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 17:47, March 12, 2008

No, you certainly can, and there are ways to do it that aren't insulting, disparaging, or derogatory quite easily--we do it all the time now. JoshuaZ's example was a bit thick and heavy, but if you just said "so and so is an unreliable source" without backing why, that's not a good thing to do.

t/e

17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, of course, but one can make contentious, unsourced statements of personal opinion without being insulting, disparaging, or derogatory (e.g. claiming that the writing of a certain author displays a nationalist bias). This is, of course, unacceptable in articles, but it's often a necessary part of talk page discussions. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And like you said, this is where common sense and consensus on a case by case basis comes into play. The wording applying only to "pages" however leaves too much wriggle room. Edit summaries, for example, irregardless of name space--BLP applies. Upload logs--BLP applies. Image file names--BLP applies. If your given name was "Black Falcon" and I uploaded an image to your BLP at

t/e

17:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit wary of assuming common sense, but since I can't think of an alternative wording that is clearer and still concise, I won't object to it. If it starts creating problems on talk pages, the issue can always be revisited. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was trying to add clarification, but I suppose that any attempt to apply BLP to an article that has nothing to do with living persons could be handled through

Still, though, this wording in it's present form can be taken to not extend to any conceivable action. That's a problem. Would this wording apply to admin actions? Moves? Deletion logs, rename logs, etc.?

t/e

17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Better? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's really it, in a nutshell. Any visible repercussion of any action by any user = subject to BLP. :)

t/e

17:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to this addition unless language is added which makes it very clear that we are able to discuss sourcing and other issues in detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is already inherent in the system, under common sense and BLP itself. We can discuss any BLP without being insulting or derogatory. If users have been thinking it's OK to slag sources on talk pages, they were wrong.

t/e

18:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then this is at best redundant; the wording you removed made clear what was and was not acceptable on talk pages and instead replaced it with vague wording that implied that much more was unacceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you implying there are exceptions to BLP?

t/e

18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The long-standing version of the page says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space" so unless you are worried about mediawiki space the policy already covers everything relevant. The long-standing version also says "Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted". So this doesn't add anything to the policy and simply makes it less clear what we can talk about on talk pages while trying to improve articles. This isn't a good change at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the more detailed version offers specific guidance. The newer version is too vague and blanket-like. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:35, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

This leaves a big hole. What about visible logs? You can easily defame someone via a block log, or page move log.

t/e

18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we just continue to use common sense for these cases? I never encountered someone who claimed they can ignore this policy in page move logs, anyways, so I don't really see the issue. --Conti|✉ 18:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like lawyering, only from the policy end. It doesn't need to be airtight and cover every possible scenario. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:46, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Of course it applies everywhere. Wikipedia is not the place to present unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about a living person. Not in an article, or even in a sandbox. Any wording that accurately describes this is fine with me.

_(1 == 2)^Until

18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And BLP applies to all actions, correct? Moves, all visible logs, such as page logs, deletion logs, move logs, block logs?

t/e

18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So list them, or just cover them by saying "all logs and summaries". But it's counter-productive to generalize and replace everything with a single blanket statement. Policies are here to guide people, not just dictate the law. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:42, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

BLP does not apply equally everywhere. It can not be used as a tool to destroy wikipedia as a free NPOV encyclopedia. And to have a free NPOV encyclopedia we need to be free to ask on talk pages "Is there a good source that can be used to verify this claim in this not so good source." even though such a reference is not a good enough source for the article itself. Further, we need to be able to discuss real life people and real life conflicts of interest in project space, even if the someone claims the connection between the edits and the real life person is disparaging. We need to act according to BLP everywhere, but the policy as written is rightfully clear that different wiki spaces are used for different things and have different standards. In the article itself lies the highest standard, and in project space, where of necessity we need to discuss people who are doing bad things, lies the lowest application of "do no harm" and "reliable verifiable sourcing". We must do harm in the form of banning to those who are trying to destroy wikipedia's neutrality. BLP is not a tool to destroy wikipedia neutrality. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree we need to be able to discuss sources freely. I

WP:BLP violation against the source's author, because the Wikipedian didn't provide a source for his editorial opinion. I could see how that could get out of hand. -- Kendrick7^talk

21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea. Bad, bad, idea. BLP as it stands makes it clear that it applies across all pages. Saying "x is a well-known liar" about living person x is technically deletable under BLP right now. Any strengthening of that that would rule out discussions such as "x's advocacy source is completely unreliable on y topic as x has an interest in y" is both overkill and extremely unhelpful from a pedia-building perspective. Relata refero (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Posting the statement that "William Example is a nasty little pederast" is actionable no matter where it is posted - in an article, on a talk page (user or article), at ANI, in an image summary, or an edit summary involving any of the above. The change discussed here doesn't expand the scope of what information BLP covers, but it does clarify that the information governed by BLP is not limited to the article space. I don't think BLP is changed in any other way, and this disclaimer merely codifies and clarifies what was a much longer section that already existed in the policy, bringing three paragraphs or thereabouts into a single unambiguous statement at the beginning of the page. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

While that is true, I would tend to say it applies differently, just as different content in general is acceptable on a talk page than in an article. Legitimate discussions of plausible claims and their appropriateness or sourceability is a valid use of a talk page. So long as the context of the discussion presents the claim as a claim which is under discussion, we simply have people discussing a subject. On the other hand, when we put something in an article, we are presenting it as fact. There's a tremendous difference between putting "Professor Example slept with his research subjects" in an article, and "Wasn't there a problem with Professor Example's work being unreliable because he slept with some of the research subjects?" on the talk page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It does apply everywhere, for obvious reasons. It applies in articles and other pages, to all biographical statements about living persons. --

I don't think anyone objects to the idea that it applies everywhere; I think the controversy is about the degree to which it applies and how rigorously it should be enforced in other namespaces, specifically in the Talk: namespace. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And what happens if a living person complains via OTRS about comments about their unreliability on a Talk page?

t/e

17:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that in practice, even if the policy were changed to state that nothing with even the slightest BLP concern would be tolerated even in Talk pages, even still the community would still give a de facto pass to discussions like: "The blogosphere is overwhelmingly reporting X, and if true X would be both noteworthy and encyclopedic -- so what would our

WP:RS

threshold be to consider X to be true, and has anyone found an RS?" It's a common (and IMO helpful) practice, and you're never going to completely stamp it out.

I almost want to say that tightening up the policy as proposed would provide additional leverage to remove Talk page comments of the form, "I heard so-and-so puts hamsters up his butt", while Wikipedia culture and

WP:IAR would still give us the de facto protection for useful discussions about obtaining reliable sources for developing news. At the same time, though, making a policy that we know is just going to be ignored could undermine the credibility of WP policy. So I'm torn... --Jaysweet (talk

) 18:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It can and probably should be blanked. More generally, if a talk page discussion contains substantial contentious, unsourced information about a living person, it might be a good idea to blank the section (and replace it with a notice similar to {{

Afd-privacy}}) once the discussion has concluded. However, to rigorously apply the BLP policy to talk pages (i.e. to remove any contentious, unsourced material as soon as it's posted) would stifle discussion about the reliability of sources, bias, etc. (Note: I was in favour of the change, but I feel that the concerns raised above regarding the wording have merit.) Black Falcon ^(Talk

) 18:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(indent)Interestingly I have been watching my nieces and nephews schools in the UK, and what a minefield of BLP issues so yesterday I tagged their school's talk page with BLP here. Today I did the same to my old school here, but also to the person whose BLP issues are mentioned there. I have had no contact with Lawrence re this issue but appear to have been practicing it anyway. Great minds think alike I guess?!? My own thinking is we need to apply BLP to all articles that mention living people.Thanks,

Please note that I changed the wording of the arbcom case reg. my edits because of accusations of disruptive editing by a tenured arbcom member without being back up by a single diff in spite of my repeated requests over a longer period of time to do so. I think the arbcom member made a BLP violation. If BLP applies everywhere then it also applies to arbcom cases. I only removed the violating material after the arbcom case (Sathya Sai Baba 2) had been closed. Andries (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP obviously applies to Arbitration cases, and to any users working on them--regular users, admins, clerks, and arbiters. No one is allowed to have a BLP exemption, and if an Arbiter were to even foolishly ever make a BLP violation on say the Proposed Decision page, any user could revert him: BLP automatically trumps any Arbitration rules.

t/e

18:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no, I would say, I think that it is fair and reasonable to give participants in an arbcom one week time or two weeks max. to gather diffs to back up their relevant accusations. After one week or two weeks or after the case has closed accusations without a shred of evidence should be removed. Irrelevant accusations without evidence can be removed immediately. Andries (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC) amended. 19:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling that some people here are not bothering to actually read

The policy states "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page", so it also applies to arbcom cases. Andries (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

True but not the full story. As WAS and I have tried to explain, the policy already makes clear that the standards of discussion are different in different article space, project space, userspace and elsewhere. Was said it well above; we will not sacrifice NPOV to BLP and indeed this policy as it stands does not do so. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, anyway removing violating material from an arbcom case after the case has closed was uncontroversial in my case. Andries (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that such actions are generally objected to although I don't see where you did it. Which case are you talking about? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here accusation of disruptive and activist editing on the topic have not been backed up by a single diff in spite of my repeated requests to several arbcom member to provide diffs Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop Andries (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm thoroughly confused (and this is getting very off-topic) since it looks like you were fighting against removal of material by the ArbCom clerk [17] (which is incidentally never a good idea). JoshuaZ (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a bit confusing, I admit. I wanted to restore the BLP violations in preparation for an appeal, but was reverted by Thatcher, though it was me who originally removed the BLP violations. S/He wrote later on his talk page that I was free to restore BLP violations because it involved me. Andries (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC) amendedl. 21:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Since none of the many changes made have received adequate discussion or had an opportunity to gain consensus support, I have reverted all edits to the policy page (including mine) to the last stable version (March 10). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While I support the idea that BLP applies to all namespaces, I think it's important to clarify that it does not apply equally. One of the defining characteristics of the BLP policy is the immediacy which it introduces with regard to removing unsourced, contentious content about living persons from articles; we cannot and should not try to extend this same sense of immediacy to discussion pages (whether in a "Talk" namespace or in the "Wikipedia" namespace). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea that BLP does not apply equally to all of Wikipedia, is clearly a change from long standing policy. If you are going to take that route, then you need to change WP:RS and WP:ATT to bring those into sync. It seems clear to me that you are articulating a “policy” that is not in fact policy. Brimba (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a change to policy, and actually reflects common practice. No one is arguing for the inclusion of insults or baseless accusations against living persons. However, to state that BLP applies equally to all namespaces is to state that a talk page comment stating "XYZ may not be a reliable source, because some of her writings seem to show a pro-something bias" should be removed immediately and the editor who wrote the statement should be warned. Clearly this does not happen and there is no consensus for this to happen. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RS says this Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biographies of living persons:

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

Which you are saying is incorrect. How should RS read? Brimba (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not saying it is incorrect. However, there is a significant difference between moving unsourced contentious material to a talk page just so that it could be preserved and discussing the reliability of a source (not necessarily the subject of the article) without seeking to ensure that the content of the discussion itself (i.e. the comments of the discussants) meets all the requirements of the

NPOV policies. To claim that BLP applies equally to all namespaces is to claim that these three content policies also apply to the content of all namespaces, at least when that content involves living people (which it often does, directly or indirectly). Black Falcon ^(Talk

) 22:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Brimba, your above comment about BLP indicates that you have not read what the policy actually says. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-article_space which is the long-standing consensus statement. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Talk pages once more, and I still fail to see what the conflict is.

Concerning RS, the line “This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.” is no longer operational. “Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and either Verifiability or No original research, this page should be updated to accurately reflect the policy as presented on those pages.” Also applies to WP:BLP. How do we resolve that? Reword or remove? Brimba (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused then, what do you think is contradicting what? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

1) The current language “about living persons should be removed immediately and without waiting for further discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.” is at best tortured English. I am a long ways from being an English major, so I can not say in exact terms what is wrong, however, I have never engage in conversation directly with a Wikipedia article itself, only with editors who posted to that page.

2) In fixing the lead (as I saw it), I grafted in wording from

WP:ATT

(and then moved to WP:RS) as being a correct synopsis of WP:BLP. That’s how WP:BLP was understood to exist at that time.

3) This was reverted with “substantial opposition to this wording, see talk page section "BLP applies everywhere".

4) When I point out the discrepancy, I am told “No, I am not saying it is incorrect.” meaning that both should continue to exist and all is good.

5) How can there be substantial opposition to the wording when used on WP:BLP, while at the same time the wording should remain on WP:RS as it acutely represents WP:BLP? It can not be both. It can not be both an apple and an orange at the same exact time.

If its correct on RS, why is it being reverted on BLP? When over the last 18 or so months did the policy change? If your worried that POV pushers will abuse it on talk pages, why does the footnote (either mine, or a rewritten one) not work? Or why not link to the appropriate section for clarity?

I would assume that a central goal of writing policy would be to achieve clarity. Right now the policy is less than clear, and neither side seems to have the numbers to push through their preferred version. That is the only reason I can see for maintaining the status quo on both BLP and RS.

I am not convinced that policy ever changed, but if it has, then at the very least RS needs to be realigned to accurately reflect BLP. Brimba (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand what you are saying. So if I understand your statement you aren't intending to remove the section detailing how BLP applies to non-article space? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My intent is to make the lead clear. Doing that without opening the door wide to POV pushers is at least as important as fixing the language in the first place. I can see no reason to fix a problem if the “fix” simply creates yet another problem. That’s what footnotes or direct linkage to the non-article space section would achieve. So to answer your question, I have no intention of removing the section detailing how BLP applies to non-article space. Brimba (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to that. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that SV’s editors are enough fix the most glaring problem. While it is less then what I was looking to do, it is more then adequate, and does not open any additional cans of worms in the process. I am going to move the footnote to the end of the sentence to maintain the structure used by all other footnotes on this page. Brimba (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)