User talk:JFHJr/BLPNW

'''This is a forum for discussion on the corresponding supbage essay. I reserve the right to reformat any posts here and on the subpage essay.'''

Invitation
If you're here, you might have been invited, or you might have just followed a link. Regardless, you're hereby invited to contribute both here and at WP:BLPN.

I created this page to mitigate intractable content disputes within BLPs whose subjects who are marginally-to-somewhat notable. I found through participation at BLPN that Wikipedia policies and guidelines surround a noteworthiness-shaped hole: what kinds sources and supported content are acceptable in biographical articles that are supposed to be encyclopedic? And what is right out? Sometimes it's not clear; currently things are between WP:UNDUE and various parts WP:BLP. If Wikipedians could make weeding-out content more fair and easy, it would improve the state of articles that might grow, and also and conform unencyclopedic articles to already existing standards. I expect the contents of the subpage to remain an essay, unless it can be pared down into something that could be inserted into WP:BLP.

For continuity during discussions, please provide an "old version" diff with your first words, and/or a regular "prev" diff in your text to show what perspective you're seeing an issue from. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 10:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Bbb23
I would focus first on the objective of the essay. The one line at the top ("This represents an attempt at articulating BLP principles, many of which are already in effect.") doesn't really communicate what you're trying to achieve. Your invitation comments just above convey more about your concerns than the essay. You need to crystalize your purpose so anyone knows fairly quickly what the essay is going to be about. Beyond that, I think the essay is a bit wordy and too formal. It's okay for policies and guidelines to be relatively formal because they supposedly represent long-thought-out consensus, but an essay is supposed to be more personal and direct. It feels too much like it's written by an academic rather than, uh, a person. :-) I've seen you be very direct and very accessible in your comments at BLPN, so you know how. I would lean more toward that style.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Just so you know, I considered a really smarmy, sarcastic version. But I wasn't sure it would pass the humor sniff-test. I'll make it more direct, though, perhaps with help. FWIW, I'd consider the first line where the text below starts, and just as soon get rid of the line you point out. JFHJr (㊟) 10:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Drmies

 * (: Q: "However, receipt of an award that enjoys no coverage in secondary sources is most likely insignificant". That's talking about an award that has no coverage itself? (Basically, an award needs to have or be able to have an article?) The receipt has coverage, right, or it couldn't be included? If you want to link to this for the benefit of fart collectors (in reference to WP:FART and the desire to note every little thing in BLPs), it would be wise to, ahem, adjust the prose or give examples that are more readily understood by writers at the level of [Tweet chroniclers])
 * (: Kelapstick revamped WP:FART.)
 * (: TLDR...Very notable awards will have been given ample mention. Less notable awards, fewer mention, and fart awards zero mention. It's a six-foot high mambo stick, so only drunks and elephants would have a problem. One third party mention is a start, and from there it goes to WP:RS and WP:BLP...TLDR.)

Comments by Canoe1967
My first article was a BLP and it appears he will be immortal in wikipedia now. I only edit or try to moderate a BLP article when I receive an email or an IP request from one of the help areas of WMF. One major thing I have noticed is the stress that some editors put on trying to make wikipedia read like a tabloid. Many BLP have a tad of dirty laundry, but to beat it to death on talk pages just to sort out whether to include, exclude, and how to word it just seems like the wrong way to write any article. This is not a tabloid that needs to expose BLP laundry in order to sell advertising. It would be nice if editors would be a little more thoughtful in this regard.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)