Template talk:Undisclosed paid/Archive 3

RfC: Whether to add language saying the payer isn't necessarily the subject
Should language be added to the undisclosed paid template saying that the payer for the editing isn't necessarily the subject?

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * TL;DR shortcut to actual text proposed by Jjjjjjjjjj: Proposed addition added by &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

So Praxidicae reverted the added language. I say below that I haven't seen a lot of evidence that it's as big as priority as I initially thought; however, I would still support including some additional language expressing that the payer isn't necessarily the subject of the article.

I'll ping all of the editors who were mentioned at the outset in the proposal to add the language, and who didn't say anything initially: Adam Williams, AleatoryPonderings, Doc James, Sampajanna, TonyBallioni, Yaxı Hökmdarz, Blablubbs, MER-C, Cookywook, Ipingalex.

Maybe at this point they are either in favor of the added language or opposed to it.

I also saw a discussion at Talk:Instacart on the use of the tag relating to a sockpuppet investigation which involved: Super Goku V, Blablubbs, Thryduulf, WhatamIdoing, and so if they want to add any comments they could do so as well.

To summarize the issue now a few weeks after working on it:


 * When people see that tag they will likely believe that the subject paid for the editing. This is consistent with the wording in Template:Connected_contributor_(paid) where it says The client is on whose behalf the edits are made; this is often the subject of the article.


 * In the case of the sockpuppet investigation, at least that I became aware of, the editor who applied the tag (Blablubbs) states frankly that it wasn't necessarily the subject who paid for the editing, There is no doubt in my mind that this page was edited in exchange for undisclosed payments; whether on behalf of the bank, an investor, a competitor or some combination of the three I do not know, but the changes made need a thorough examination.
 * So it seemed to me that that information on the uncertainty of who the payer actually is could be shared with the readers, and that way the information given via the template would be more accurate.

I could say though that at the time I looked into that issue I felt it was a high priority not to unduly antagonize people, companies or other entities. I imagined managers getting angry about it, and assigning staff to work on removing it.

But I haven't seen much evidence that companies or people necessarily care that much about the presence of that tag. So it's not clear to me how high a priority it ought to be.

The script that I wrote to check on the status of the articles indicates that the tag hasn't been removed from any other than those listed in the table, and the two additional Bob Chapek and Maria Elvira Salazar found on February 12.

In thinking about this issue I've brought to mind California Proposition 65. I've seen Prop 65 warnings all over the place, and as the Wikipedia article says, maybe it kind of starts to just get ignored.

In the section there 1986_California_Proposition_65 the text says:

"The law has also been criticized for causing 'over-warning' or 'meaningless warnings,' and this risk has been recognized by a California court. There is no penalty for posting an unnecessary warning sign, and to the extent that warnings are vague or overused, they may not communicate much information to the end user."

And one of the references there also mentions:

"People see Prop. 65 warning signs nearly every place they go – grocery and hardware stores, restaurants, commercial buildings, car show rooms, hotels and inns, pretty much everywhere..."

So maybe this kind of raises a larger issue with the use of templates on Wikipedia. People may see them on articles, and don't pay much attention to it.

I would confess that I haven't necessarily paid that much attention to the template tags at the top of articles as a reader of Wikipedia. Perhaps in this case the combination of the "$" and the red color made a bit of a difference.

But I don't know that this is the place to get into that larger issue, and maybe as mentioned above it's not really as high a priority as other matters.

But while on the topic I could also just mention another side issue.

If is inside of  then I think it's much less noticeable because the "$" doesn't appear and neither does the red color appear. One can consider Newbridge Silverware for example.

The issue of the red color was discussed earlier at Template_talk:Undisclosed_paid/Archive_1 and Doc James, SamHolt6, SmartSE argued for including it because of the seriousness of the issue while ViperSnake151 and MSGF disagreed. One way or another I would think certainly it could get applied to an article but no payment was made in any way.

When I looked at this article on Jack Rogers (retailer) I saw that blogs and Google Plus were cited in the edit summary when was applied. So maybe somebody was paid to edit that article, but I wonder if just some fan of the shoe company could have added links to blogs and Google Plus.

Just want to also let people know that I may not get a chance to work on this again for a few days.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going with that it's a net gain to add the language to the template. I just looked at Consensus, and Silence and consensus (also Warnock's dilemma).

The edit summary when reverting was, "I see no consensus for this and given this has legal implications, it's part of the tou and is a policy, it at minimum needs a clear consensus".

So Consensus has:

"Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."

And Silence and consensus has:

"Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement...A corollary is that if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so."

Although I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence that it's created strife or confusion or bewilderment between different companies that doesn't mean that such things didn't occur when all of those tags were put onto all of those articles.

With so much strife in the world I think it's good to try to decrease that, and so I'm going with that the change is net positive.

Also, one could consult the Terms of Use, the FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure, and Paid-contribution_disclosure.

I haven't seen anything in any of those documents which somehow contradicts with adding information to the template that the payer for the editing isn't necessarily the subject of the article.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted you AGAIN. As this is a policy based template you need to get consensus first. Further, the language is completely unnecessary and silly. CUPIDICAE💕  21:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)




 * Okay, well, it's not entirely up to me. I can put messages on editors' talk pages, and post to the Village Pump as talked about in WP:RFC to seek to get more feedback. I think there's a reasonable chance there will be responses.


 * I can aim to put the issue in a nutshell so that other editors can make an evaluation.


 * I think that language is helpful because otherwise people will think that the subject paid to have the article edited when for the 87 articles listed in the table there's essentially no evidence that that is so. As I said above I think there's a high cost to unduly unjustifiably antagonizing people and companies. Wikipedia as a good Internet citizen should do unto others as others would do unto it.


 * But it's not just about Wikipedia being nice. It's in Wikipedia's immediate and direct interest to provide full and accurate information. If Wikipedia gets a reputation for misleading or erroneous information then fewer people will read it, fewer people will edit it, fewer people will link to it, and there will be a deterioration in quality and a decline in search rankings.


 * Also, plenty of companies and individuals other than Monzo may have been perturbed by it, but I didn't detect any action on their part not just because they have other priorities but also because employees aren't familiar with Wikipedia.


 * Please feel free to elaborate on why you think it's silly and unnecessary.


 * The continued presence of the tags on multiple articles can serve to legitimize what is what intended to rebuke. Smaller companies and less prominent individuals tend to try to emulate larger companies and more prominent individuals. Patagonia, Nordstrom, and J. Crew, for example, have pretty strong brand recognition in the US, and so people may assume that if those companies pay people to edit Wikipedia, and it's not a serious issue, that they could look to hire paid editors as well.
 * Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed addition
(Intermediate heading added by &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC) hopefully for all our benefits)
 * As a brief final point I think there's a better way to provide that information which would be to just add, "The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article." to what is already there.


 * That seems simpler. It's just one additional sentence which, as far as I can tell, says the honest truth of the matter.
 * Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey
You're probably right - maybe the solution is for this template to have a switch, and to encourage the use of that switch. The template does what I consider to be an important job at the moment, namely telling readers the article has possibly been paid for and that it hasn't yet been checked to make sure the subject is notable, that there are no hidden POV issues, peacock terms etc. The problem, as you and WhatamIdoing have eluded to, is that nobody wants to remove the template, so I'm thinking how about changing it such that once the article has been checked and it is found to be acceptable, a switch is set which then puts a small disclaimer at the bottom of the article, informing the reader that the article when created or substantially modified was done so in return for payment, but it has been checked and it meets our quality criteria (notability, neutrality, etc). I think it's vital we remain transparent with both our readers and our editors, which is why I'm against the idea of going with the standard notability, POV, weasle words, peacock terms and other maintenance templates - they can and would be used to hide the fact there has been paid editing, removing transparency, but I do get the problem with the template being added and never being removed, even if there's nothing wrong with the content (indeed, lots of paid for articles can be extremely high quality, if the person paying doesn't hire a complete fuckwit and pay them $5). Nick (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This seems like a solution in search of a problem. There is no need to prove that the subject may not be the person who paid. I'm unaware of any case where someone has paid for an edit on a subject unrelated to themselves as it would be pretty unnecessary. --  Dane  talk  21:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose (and ideally delete the template). There are many reasons why someone may pay for an article about someone other than themselves - their business, their family member, their family member's business, a person they are a fan of, etc, etc. However, who paid and why they paid is both irrelevant and not implied, so there is no need to add a poorly-worded sentence refuting an implication that is not made. Indeed, I'm not sure of the value of this template at all- if the topic is notable and the article is neutral it doesn't matter whether someone was paid to write it, it's a good addition to the encyclopaedia. If the topic is not notable it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia regardless of whether anyone was paid to write it. If the topic is notable but the article is not neutral, it needs to be made neutral and until that point it needs to be tagged as non-neutral so people know that - whether the non-neutrality comes from payment is irrelevant. If an editor has a COI with regards to an article then they should abide by the COI policy, it is irrelevant whether that COI comes from payment or any other reason. In short, it is never relevant whether or not someone has been paid to write the article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleting the template didn't really occur to me because it seemed like that would just be too drastic a change; however, I couldn't say that I would be opposed to this because I would have to say that I haven't seen uses of the template on articles that seemed to me clearly of great use to the reader. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleting the template—I suggested that half a year ago. Undisclosed paid just provides an opportunity to make a vague accusation without expecting, or even allowing, anyone to prove it. --Pgallert (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose be nice. be nice. be nice. be nice. be nice. This is not a good modification. We don't give a shit about who paid for the article, we care about who created the article and the level of clean-up which may be required, whether there's sockpuppetry involved and so on. I'd love to agree with Thryduulf once in something like 15 years, and I get really close this time, but ultimately, I think with fewer active editors available to do the clean-up, warning readers that the article was paid for and might not be up to our usual impeccable (bahahahahaha) standards is fair and measured. If we had more editors, we could queue up the articles for assessment and deletion if necessary, but we don't and we can't.On an equally serious note, I know you're keen but your conduct is way out of line with regards to this RfC - harassment of users who disagree with you and massive canvassing violations, all of that shit needs to stop and you need to get busy with the apologising and the removal of the canvassed messages. I think you should find a more productive use of your time than this RfC, which is going nowhere. Nick (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I said on my talk page to Praxidicae that if people disagree with me they are free to say Oppose. Nobody said anything so I didn't know whether they agreed with me or not. If it ends with this not being done then that's how it goes. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you apologising and removing the canvassing now ? Nick (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This template does nothing different to what (or ideally more specific templates highlighting specific problems) does. Whether or not it was created for pay is irrelevant to the reader. See the more extensive discussion of this at . Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I totally understand your viewpoint on this, but I think our readers may be interested and are entitled to know if an article may have been written for pay, it (for me, anyway) neatly sums up a variety of individual concerns which may not be sufficient for a dedicated template. There's the POV issue, obviously, but many paid for articles also have notability issues (many of which may not be sufficiently clear to a reviewing editor for them to feel comfortable putting the notability template on the page, or to go for some type of deletion). To my mind, the undisclosed paid editing tag is a useful way to indicate there could be problems and the article should be read with great care, the notability and POV check} templates are more for when an editor actually has a concern they can explain to readers and other editors. Nick (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the above linked section, if you cannot articulate a problem with the article then you should not be using this (or any other) template. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But undisclosed paid editing is a problem. It's a Terms of Use violation, in fact. Nick (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is an editor conduct problem, not an article content problem. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nick, I agree with Thryduulf. I don't understand how "undisclosed paid editing is a problem" is a problem that can be solved by volunteers.  Maintenance templates are supposed to be about fixing the article, right?  If the problem statement is "Six months ago, a long-gone account might have violated a behavioral rule", then how do you solve the problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not just a conduct issue, it's an issue of transparency and noting this is important. VAXIDICAE💉  00:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is important to note that an article has been created or edited by an editor who might (or might not) have been paid to do so then surely it must always be important to do so regardless of whether there are any problems with the article? However, the template's instructions make it explicit that it is only to be used where and editor can explain specific problems with the article's neutrality, and that it can be removed at any time by any user. By extension the template can also be removed once the neutrality problems have been resolved. That means that there is only a need to be transparent when there are documented neutrality problems, which is exactly the same as the standard neutrality and pov-check templates meaning this template is redundant to them. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Why is it important that we brand the article forever as having had paid a possibly unpaid contbribution? We don't do it when the editor discloses they were paid and we don't do it for an editor with any other form of COI - those notes go on the talk page at most, indeed payment disclosure is permitted to be in the edit summary or even solely on the user page. If it was so important for readers to know that an article might have been created/edited for pay, then surely it would be even more important for them to know that it actually was? Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * absoultely and I would support a similar notice being added to the bottom of articles noting when they have been created by disclosed paid editing. It's ultimate transparency - readers should know who is creating the content they read. It's the same as the credits on a TV series declaring promotional consideration, it makes no difference to the plot and the viewers what model of SUV a police detective drives, but it's still nice to see that Ford supplied the vehicles free of charge. Nick (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So by that logic we should also have notes when articles were created/significantly edited by those with a conflict of interest, Wikimedians in residence, fans of the subject, experts in the subject, non-experts in the subject, following a request for an article, after an error was noted by someone with a close connection to the subject, in response to a media article about the subject, in response to a media article about the Wikipedia article, etc? Even if you get consensus for any of this, who gets to decide what "significant" means? When does a previously significant contribution stop being significant? Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Those templates already exist, some of them are the very templates you want to use in place of Undisclosed paid. Or do you want to delete those templates too, on the basis that it's impossible to decide when they should be used ? Nick (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, templates like highlight a specific, actionable problem and get removed when that problem has been actioned. Templates like  go on the article talk page (and are indeed sometimes overused). There are no other templates that, to my knowledge, are placed on an article page which do not relate to the state of the article content. If there are other templates that act like this one does then they too should be gotten rid of. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be forever, but when it is reviewed. (Preferably from an uninvolved editor.)  Editing these articles is tricky, especially from my personal experience when it is implied that the person trying to fix the article is a paid editor despite mostly restoring past content that was removed by a group of sockpuppets that was discovered due to an investigation.  --Super Goku V (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nothing in the current template says that the "payer" is necessarily the subject, and it doesn't matter whether they are or not.  The fact that the phrasing is not idiomatic English could be fixed – but why? This is not actually a problem.  Undeclared paid editing is a problem, and tweaking this template is not going to address that. --bonadea contributions talk 21:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's true that it doesn't say the payer is the subject; however, as I pointed out above the documentation at Template:Connected_contributor_(paid) includes the statement, The client is on whose behalf the edits are made; this is often the subject of the article, and so many people may assume that the payer is the subject when they see that. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it matters if people are falsely accused, even if we merely imply the accusation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and honestly the template needs re-consideration. It doesn't identify any issues, only a potential issue, so it tends to linger, because who wants to be the one to remove it? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, @Elli: It doesn't identify any issues.  Specifically, it might be redundant to Template:POV check (there might have been a paid editor, and therefore there the article needs to be checked for PEACOCKing and to see whether anyone "accidentally on purpose" removed unfavorable content), or it might be about a problem that no other editor can address (a paid editor didn't do the paperwork properly in the past). Editors disagree about which problem is supposed to be addressed before removing this template.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I find the template perfectly suitable to its purpose (and don't see that it's not idiomatic English, either). It states everything it needs to state and does not need to address chain-of-payments problems in unnecessary detail; the passive voice covers this already. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the "non-idiomatic English" comment was referring to the proposed addition not to the existing text. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah. Okay, thanks, Thryduulf. I hadn't discerned that any particular text had been proposed. The requester has apparently concealed that particular tree in a very dense forest. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it took me quite a lot of reading to figure out what was actually proposed. All that you actually need to read is the last example template and the sentence below that, which indicates that the proposal is to add the sentence "The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article.". If you can think how to make this clear at the top of the RFC without conflating your comments with the requester's then please go ahead and do it for all our benefits! Thryduulf (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, although that wording isn't ideal. Look at it from a BLP lens:  would you let an editor write in an article, "This subject might have paid, directly or indirectly, to have this Wikipedia article edited"?  With no source whatsoever?  And not only no source cited, but with a reasonable belief that no reliable source has ever mentioned that?  This tag is "in the article" from the readers' POV, even if established editors mentally separate the two, so why shouldn't there be some sort of (preferably small ) disclaimer on this tag?  Without this, I think it is likely that many readers will assume that the subject is paying for the edits, and our unwillingness to provide that disclaimer increases the strength of the implication.  (Also many editors will believe that we mean to accuse the subject, because, seriously, how often have you found a paid editor who wasn't hired by the subject or the subject's close connections?  If your answer is somewhere between "never" and "almost never", then you can understand why editors will see this accusation as meaning that the subject has broken the rules.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If readers are thinking that this is implying something about the article subject then the template is a massive BLP problem and should be deleted post haste, being substituted for the template which conveys all of the information that is relevant to the reader (the article might not be neutral) without casting any (almost always unprovable) aspersions on anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's perfectly fine as it is, and adding more text just makes the template more confusing in my opinion. Why would you automatically assume you're paying for your own article anyway? Also there's something off about that grammar too. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The template as it is is perfectly fine. I addition, we construe any reward broadly, and it is not necessary an actual payment for work in an article or draft. Fiddle   Faddle  00:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've read through this talk page (I hadn't seen in more detail till today the earlier discussion on making discussion necessary when applying the template). Can relay what other people have said. Doc James said in the edit summary here, No position. I say keep it short.. Cookywook, who is an employee at the online bank Monzo, and who discussed the matter with the editor who tagged the article on the bank, said at User_talk:Cookywook, Hey Jjjjjjjjjj, I'm generally in favour of that change. Not just for us but as a general change for use of that template. Thanks!. Can seek to work more on this tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjjjjj (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see any problem with the template as it is. SmartSE (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, as without such wording, use of the template is, on applicable articles, likely contrary to our policy on BLPs. It would have been better to conduct this RfC on a more neutral forum such as a Village Pump. We should also make talk page discussion mandatory when this template is used, as proposed above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the time it can't be disclosed on the talk page as it would be outing. We need to strengthen our approach to paid editors, not put the burden on volunteers abiding by policy. VAXIDICAE💉  12:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a bullshit reason. If you can't say what is wrong with an article, and why, you should not be tagging it. Who is to say the tag is not false? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The argument that explaining the problem with the article requires outing was comprehensively refuted in the discussion above. Nothing has changed since then. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are unable to see that this is also about transparency doesn't make my assertion incorrect and you've got no idea the extent of deceptive editing that people like myself and deal with on a near daily basis. Wikipedia is being manipulated by large and small firms to legitimize people and their businesses. That is a problem and this tag helps to identify it so that not only are our readers are being made aware but also that other editors may want to take the time to clean it up to our standards and actually evaluate whether it's appropriate.  VAXIDICAE💉  12:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The tag doesn't identify anything other than someone has accused someone else of possibly violating a rule. It doesn't make readers or editors aware of what the actual problems with the article are (is it non-neutral? are there peacock terms? is the subject non-notable? etc) nor what needs to be done clean it up. Whether it was created or edited deceptively or not is completely irrelevant to what the problem with the article content is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I deal with BLP violations on a near daily basis. So my vacuous appeal to authority neutralises your vacuous appeal to authority. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wording on maintainence templates needs to be short, and simple. I would support the text "undisclosed payments" being wikilinked through to WP:PAID. -- a they/them &#124; argue &#124; contribs 12:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, there are cases where paid editing is paid by people related to an organization in some way, but not necessarily the organization itself. It may be a collaborating organization, parent company, partner, a competitor, a political adversary, etc. However, I'm a bit reluctant to add more wording about the payment scheme, which I think is missing the point. An article with the UDP template should be reviewed by other editors and then the template may be removed with or without modifying the article, that pretty much depends on the case. I also think it is important to raise awareness in our community about the scale of the problem: many organizations with full-time teams working 40 hours/week (more in some cases) on covert Wikipedia manipulation and gaming every possible rule they can. Yes, there is extensive evidence about this. And yes, making people aware of the problem is part of the solution. There's no reason to play it down. MarioGom (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as overemphasis. I assume everyone realized this. For one thing, it's often the person's company or institution, and it may well be without their knowledge, as a routine job of the PR department, as is often the case for academics. It may occasionally be an attempt at a hit job--and I have also seen original paid editing writing as promotionalism turned into a hit job, sometimes after we chased the original paid editor away). For another, it is now very often the subject's child or other relative. We need a different approach for the ones written by family, and if I can tell I try to be a little gentle.. But the proposed wording negates the usual and basic message. There might be an improved wording, but this isn't it.  DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

When to remove this template?
The template documentation should provide some guidance. My opinion is it that if an uninvolved editor reviews the article, and removes any content which is non-NPOV, promotional, etc, and we are left with an article that sticks to the facts, it is fine to remove the template. For example, I removed it from Taymur Jumblatt. He is an important Lebanese politican – the first-born son of the long-standing political leader of the Lebanese Druze community, Walid Jumblatt, a member of the Lebanese Parliament, leader of the Democratic Gathering bloc in the Lebanese parliament, and his father's anointed political successor. He's undeniably notable. The article may be a bit stubby but it seems to stick to the facts. Even if this particular article was produced by an undisclosed paid editor, I don't see any problem with its existence or content. (Also, even if an editor is an "undisclosed paid editor", how do we know for sure every article they produce is for their paying clients? They might create some articles on legitimate topics that have nothing to do with their paying clients, in order to provide some cover. For all I know, this article is one of those.) Mr248 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The template can be removed after the article has been reviewed by an uninvolved editor. In any case, add your rationale to the talk page and if another editor does not agree, they can let you know there. MarioGom (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Appearance within "Multiple issues"
This template looks quite dramatic on a page, but if it's put within Multiple issues it diminishes to look like any old maintenance template. Should there be advice against including it into that grouping? An editor believed that a strong message had been downgraded to a warning when the appearance of an article changed from this to this. Pam D  14:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion at BLP talk
See Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_48 Herostratus (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)