Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents


Comment

I made similar comment at talk:BLP, but it should be mentioned here as well. It should not be assumed that all admins are going to be on the same page about what is a proper source for negative info about a living person. I am currently in a dispute with an admin over this very issue. I have removed poorly sourced negative info from several pages, and an admin keeps reinserting this information, stating that the sources are proper. An AMA advocate is looking at the issue, and is tending to agree that my interpretation of what is a proper source for neg info is correct. The dispute has yet to be resolved fully, but this indicates that we have a problem here. I think that any admins that will be monitoring this page and taking action need to either be trained or vetted in some manner specifically on sourcing for negative info. This is perhaps the greatest threat to the entire project, from both liability and credibility standpoints. Crockspot 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed wording from the page, so that it is more generic and not restricted to administrators only. Maybe we need this noticeboard in a different place that WP:AN. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Does this mean I can join the posse? :) Deputize me, ma'am! Crockspot 17:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Admins should remember their lack of additional editorial authority more clearly, particularly in relation to this policy which may also call for them to deploy admin rights in situations where their involvement may make things ethically unclear. -Splash - tk 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It seemed sensible so I added this noticeboard to {{Editabuselinks}} to clue other folks in (particularly admins). (→Netscott) 18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This isn't particularly an admin issue, so please don't start making it one :) As I understand it, this policy has come from "higher up", so any serious issues will be office matters not admin issues. Also, there are over 100,000 living person bios on WP, and just under 1000 admins, so in practical terms this is going to be mostly the domain of regular editors. With that caveat, carry on! :) --kingboyk 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
And of course my wording reflected that. But we all know that 1000 editors here tend to do 90% of the work (last the I read anyways). (→Netscott) 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding a link to the noticeboard on {{blp}}?

It'd be good to provide a link to the noticeboard via the BLP template so that editors who are in doubt or having difficulty with other editors can have a place to go. I invite other editors to join the discussion about this idea. Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Top or bottom?

Should new notices be added at the top of the list, or the bottom? Not specified. Also, should entire case be stated here, or should it go to the talk page of the article in question? Do we have a mechanism for "closing" cases? This could turn into a mess pretty quickly. Crockspot 12:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not the arbCom, just a noticeboard to bring BLP related issues to the attention of editors. As such, there is no need to "close" cases. See this as a special case of RfC. Add new entries to the bottom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I aswered my first question when I added a notice and saw the comment in the code. I guess I just see the possiblilty of this page becoming extremely large, and unresolved issues eventually getting archived away. But perhaps as more people become aware of this noticeboard, issues will get resolved fairly quickly. Murphy is my co-pilot, so I'm always looking out for what can go wrong. Crockspot 16:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment conventions?

I recommend that, either in the template, or by user convention, if others are going to comment on a case, that a triple-equal-sign subhead be created below the case brief, to make it easier to distinguish between the stated case, and any comments from others about it. Can the main double-equal-sign header also be incorporated into the template? I haven't looked into how templates are created, so idunno. Crockspot 16:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No authority to delete articles

Some of the comments in the Barbara Schwarz section of the project page worry me. Two users are considering a perfectly casual deletion of an article because they heard a rumour that perhaps someone's lawyer doesn't like parts of it at times. This page doesn't have any such authority. If it's so important that the entire article needs to be obliterated then the WP:OFFICE should be called upon since in them rests ultimate authority. If you think the article is bad, take it to AfD; if it exists for no other purpose than to attack, then it's a CSD; if it's merely a bit unfortunate for the subject in places then it's the WP:OFFICE's problem about whether to take dire action or not. Up to that point, it remains purely editorial. Please don't get carried away with casual, armchair-lawyer-like decisions. -Splash - tk 01:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would think that no web site, including wikipedia, should remove anything merely based on a demand by an attorney. If that were the case, let's get rid of Wikipedia along with half the Internet. On the other hand, a demand letter from an attorney (or any serious request from an aggrieved party) should result in a thoughtful examination of the issue(s) presented. The goal would be a decision in favor of honesty, integrity and justice, to the best of everyone's ability. That sounds trite, but I think that's the bottom line. Criticism is a gift, even if it's spurious, because there's always a chance it will lead to an insight. 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Raryel

Ricky Valance

I've dusted Ricky Valance down for some serious anti-authority POV, but the article needs a lot of work if anybody has the time (Sorry, don't know the first thing about him so can't do it myself) perfectblue 13:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sex workers?!

How exactly did this page get added into THAT category?! 68.39.174.238 06:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin has something in his comment that tagged it. I nowikied it to keep it out of the category.--Tbeatty 06:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Patrol?

Does anyone know: is Wikipedia:Living People Patrol still, well, alive? I have tried posting there a few times over issues related to this in the last couple of weeks, and have gotten no response at all. In one case, I just acted unilaterally, given the lack of advice, but the other was a more open-ended issue, which I will bring here as the next section. - Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:American terrorists

[copied from Wikipedia talk:Living People Patrol]
Per WP:BLP: should living people ever be included in this Category:American terrorists? If it were "American people convicted of terrorism", then maybe, but clearly it is not. I just removed Naveed Afzal Haq from the category: if what he did is terrorism, then probably every hate crime is terrorism; I don't think we want to go that route. Offhand, no one else on the list seems so inappropriate that I was ready to act unilaterally, but I didn't check all of the articles, and some of the names are unfamiliar to me.

The same considerations would apply to the many other subcategories of Category:Terrorists by nationality. - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[end copied]

Wikipedia lacks a consensus on issues of categorization. Use best judgement. Be useful to the reader but not libelous to anyone. Remember, each editor is legally responsible for their edits. WAS 4.250 06:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Process for closing out incidents?

Do we have a process for closing out any incidents that are on here and are now resolved? --plange 00:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Invent one. WAS 4.250 03:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
LOL, okay :-) --plange 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Has anything been decided on in the past two months? There's some really old stuff on there now. Are there any objections to archiving any discussion that hasn't had a comment in 2 weeks? Right now, there's so much on the page that it's going to discourage people from even looking at it? BigDT 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

Does this policy apply to Talk pages? I just saw a revert on Talk:Ken Blackwell (and the revert cited this policy). I would sort of assume that there wouldn't be a sourcing requirement on Talk pages, but I suppose I can see the other side. (The deleted material on this particular Talk page bordered on nonsense, so in this case, I'm not really objecting. Just raised my curiousity about what the general rule is/ought to be.)--Inonit 20:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, yes. There is more latitude on talk pages than in articles, but there is still far less latitude on living people than otherwise, especially if one is getting into the realm of potentially libelous remarks. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New template

I've been bold and created a template to help BLP related articles be actively surveiled. Template:Blplinks. I've also updated the header to specify this and swapped out previous headings. This seemed like a straightforward change but I encourage others to revert my changes if there appears to be need for a consensus surrounding them. Thanks. (→Netscott) 06:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Very handy. Aside from the obvious visible things, does this template do anything else under the hood, such as make notifications to lists, etc.? Crockspot 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, when one clicks the the Wathlist this WP:BLP article link the templated article is added to an editor's Special:Watchlist. If you haven't already done so I suggest reading Help:Watching pages to better understand what watchlisting is about. (→Netscott) 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I was including the watchlisting fuction in "obvious visible things". So in other words, what you see is what you get. Again, very handy. Crockspot 17:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Can the "Watchlist this WP:BLP articel" be toned down? As it is it makes the ToC on this page HUGE! Can't it be reduced to just "Watch" or "Watchlist" like {{la}} does? For that matter, what's wrong with just using {{la}}? 68.39.174.238 23:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anything happen here?

The page is long, tons of entries seem to have no signatures, or even follow up... What really happens here? 68.39.174.238 23:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • We're volunteers. We do what we can. It's a thankless job. - Crockspot 00:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
But what about archiving? Having a huge page can be a deterrent to using it. 68.39.174.238 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
No kidding ... any objection to archiving sections that haven't been touched in 2+ weeks? BigDT 19:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's wait a day or two to see if there are any objections, but if not, someone should set up archive pages and enroll Werdnabot or Essjaybot to help out. Newyorkbrad 20:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I was beginning to wonder if anyone else had noticed that the page was enormously long. It's a bit difficult to manage given that there is no 'BLP taskforce' that goes out and fixes everything mentioned that needs fixing (incidentally, WP:BLP while a generally good policy has been an absolute boon to those who don't want undeniably true but embarrassing facts recorded in their heroes' biographies). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Everything prior to 11/15 has now been archived. Hopefully, this gets everything down to a manageable size. If an issue from the archives needs to be re-opened, it can be copied and pasted back into the main page, it can be, but if nobody has cared about the request in a month ... ;) BigDT 01:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

New suggestion: procedure for closing discussions

Please take a look at WP:DRV. To close a deletion review, they use {{drt}} and {{drb}}. See Archiving DRV's. Would anyone have an objection to using these same tags to close an issue? That way, (1) closed issues can be archived and (2) the page will not look quite as imposing. BigDT 01:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have closed three issues. Please take a look and let me know what you think. I just noticed, after closing them, that the template says, "deletion review" so we will need our own version of it ... but does anyone have any objections with the idea in concept? If we can get some of the simple ones closed, hidden, and archived, then all of a sudden it isn't quite as imposing and we can deal with the issues that are more difficult. BigDT 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have been WP:BOLD and created {{Blpt}} and {{Blpb}} for this purpose. BigDT 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To close an incident

I tried following the BLPN instructions to close a BLPN incident using the provided templates but was not successful. Would someone put more detail on how to use the provided templates to close an incident on the BLPN board. Thanks. -- Jreferee 02:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura

This is a biography of a living person where the content is clearly disputed. While it is locked from editing and correction, false and misleading, poorly sourced, irresponsible, and potentially libelous material is being exhibited, and Dr. Omura's reputation is being damaged. This is unacceptable. I have repeatedly removed such material and it gets repeatedly replaced, and now I am disabled from editing the article, though I am not unregistered or newly registered. Please help. We should not need a law firm to help us remove such material. Sincerely, Telomere+ ```` 06:50, January 13 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I know this has been brought up before, but this page really needs to be automatically archived. --Ideogram 21:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt

I strongly object to the abrupt closing of this listing without any inputs from people. There are strong concerns that people are making claims that his title is not legit in his article. Unreferenced accusations are not "content disputes". Corvus cornix 23:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of archives

→ In re Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive toc.

(Just a note after a dyslexia-defying process of sorting the WP:BLP/N archives and correcting their respective timespans from earliest post to last post.) — Athænara ✉ 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Schwarz 4

Hello Athaenara, I have been waiting to see if the Barbara Schwarz article violated WP:BLP as alleged by the editor who added it to WP:BLPN. I see you have archived it, does this mean that the article does not violate BLP? Anynobody 07:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this until today—as noted in the current discussion (4) on the noticeboard, previous discussions (1) (2) (3) are in WP:BLP/N archives 1, 4 and 10. — Æ. ✉ 04:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem on the reply time, thanks for the links :) Anynobody 06:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Burt Reynolds

please revert this page to before the unsourced and poorly sourced stuff by Dalbury was added not to mention he added these pic links to burts page too. [tinypic links (not added to article by editor accused of it) removed from this post] So please revert, Thanks Rogue Gremlin 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If Dalbury has admin rights, they should seriously be called into question for removed stuff that i had valid proof for, and then adding "unsourced and poorly sourced stuff" in its placeRogue Gremlin 04:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the "unsourced" and "poorly sourced" material that Rogue Gremlin has just deleted cited Burt Reynolds' autobiography, My Life, by page number. Reynolds' autobiography is certainly a reliable source for what Reynolds says about his life. That some of the material in his autobiography contradicts things that Reynolds stated in other venues does not invalidate his autobiography as a source. -- Donald Albury 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The report by Rogue Gremlin (talk · contribs) was spurious, noted as such, closed and archived. I removed the external links the user included in the first post in this section. — Athænara ✉ 06:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Walter

Is there some reason Richard Walter islisted three separate times on the project page at this time? Should those be merged, or what's going on? DreamGuy 17:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary privilege

I'd like opinions on whether information disclosed using Parliamentary privilege is acceptable for use in articles. An MP is welcome to make any allegation they choose without any evidence, and as all proceedings are available online they can be reliably sourced. The articles I'm concerned about are La Mon restaurant bombing and Kingsmill massacre. The latter is slightly less problematic due to the additional coverage of the allegation. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 18:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My view is that as long as Parliamentary privilege article is linked to, and is properly explained, it isn't an issue. The Parliamentary privilege article explains it fully, but maybe in each article which has a mention of its use there should be an explanation of its legal standing and the controversy surrounding it. It is mentioned in the Bobby Storey article as well. In that article it states that "No evidence has been publicly produced to confirm these allegations", which is an important point to make. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but I'm of the opinion that if we're including an allegation that a living person murdered 12 people we need a better source than this person said it, as after all exceptional claims require exceptional sources. For example David Icke claimed that the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh are "bloodsucking alien lizards", I can only imagine the furore if I tried to include that in their articles. One Night In Hackney303 15:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
My view is that as long as Parliamentary privilege article is linked to, and is properly explained, it isn't an issue. The Parliamentary privilege article explains it fully, but maybe in each article which has a mention of its use there should be an explanation of its legal standing and the controversy surrounding it. It is mentioned in the Bobby Storey article as well. In that article it states that "No evidence has been publicly produced to confirm these allegations", which is an important point to make. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is fine as long as it is done responsibly and within the bounds of WP:BLP as is done in Kingsmill massacre. That is, the text is cited and it is explicitly stated in such a way that it is understood that MP X stated Y about Z under parliamentary privilege. It becomes a problem when a cite of something said under parliamentary privilege is used to support weasel wording like "it is widely believed [that something is true]" or "officials believe person X is responsible for action Y". As long as it is clearly stated who said something and in what context, I'm comfortable letting readers discern the validity of the statement and source for themselves. I was writing this during your post above and I'd say that I wouldn't want to see "person X murdered 12 according to MP Y". but "in a parliamentary session MP Y, invoking Parliamentary privilege, stated it was his belief that person X was responsible for the murder of 12 people" would be more acceptable.--Isotope23 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable enough, I'll make the necessary changes to the La Mon article later and probably include brief details about the controversy of the use of PP as a footnote. So I take it there's no objections to the addition of "According to David Icke, the Duke of Edinburgh is a bloodsucking alien lizard, but no evidence has been publicly produced to confirm this allegation" to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh then? ;) One Night In Hackney303 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly not going to revert you... I for one welcome our new Reptilian Overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a Wikipedia Admin I could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves... or would that be guinea pig mines?--Isotope23 17:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the section, given that it adds nothing to the section, as it is not an official call for inquiry. In addition, the removed section is nothing but anti-SF and anti-Adams rantings that would be considered libel anywhere else gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)