User talk:Tawker/BLPD

I don't like this idea.
For someone like, say, Avril Lavigne, or George Bush, even in theory, to be able to say "You're not allowed to have an article on me" is strange. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia here, and that means documenting everything important whether or not someone feels like having it documented. And what's with the "it's a good idea not to include exact dates of birth"? I've never heard that.
 * In short, for the former, how about we define it as "private" persons. Aka someone who is not a politician, performing artist or other such "public figure."  As for the latter, birthdates can be used to steal someone's identity, and identity theft is a bad thing.  Maybe the year or so (see WP:BLP it's already in policy) -- Tawker 05:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Birthdates are a matter of public record (in the US, at least - SSDI, for one). There's no security through obscurity in not including them in articles. Alvis 07:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Love it. We should definitely do this. It's ridiculous to carry articles on almost nobodies who do not want to be in. We don't have a right to cover everybody. It's a mistake to think we do. It actually upsets some people. And when they are known for something negative, the only thing the sources will have to say about them will be negative. A Bad Thing, although you wouldn't believe it to read what some people here write. Grace Note 04:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do have a right to cover everybody, as long as we can write a non-defamatory article. We won't, because of verifiability and notability, but we can and do try to cover everybody who fulfills those. Somebody can't choose to not be covered in the media, and why should we not have information simply because someone requests that we not have it? -Amarkov blahedits 17:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This contradicts long-standing precedent, most obviously at the Seigenthaler dispute. If verifiable encyclopedic information is available on some person (not the "nobodies" Grace refers to) then an encyclopedia should cover it. A policy such as this would allow anyone who has been negatively cast in the news to let himself be stricken from the encyclopedia.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite. If in something that is easily searchable - aka, if I go onto google or yahoo and type in "xyz negative issue" if I don't find hits for it (from non WIkipedia sources) then it goes.  If I can, it's not as if Wikipedia is doing any harm by simply restating what is easily searchable for.  If it's not easily searchable, then Wikipedia does have potential to induce negative images about a person.  It's all about ease of access to potentially harmful information. -- Tawker 06:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter if it's easily accessible, as long as it is verifiable? If it's so hard to find that nobody could reasonably be expected to go track it down and verify it, you have a point, but we shouldn't delete true, verifiable information because I can't Google it. Even on living people. -Amark moo! 01:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources. In principle, if a reliable source says Alan Hevesi violated New York State law, then there's no problem for Wikipedia to reproduce that information. Even if Mr. Hevesi were to send us a message saying he'd rather not have an article here, we wouldn't listen, nor have we listened to similar requests in the past. It is of course important to steer clear of libel and defamation. Also, there's already a rule allowing deletion if author requests deletion and nobody else cares about the article anyway. I don't see a situation where this rule can be the best encyclopedic solution. YechielMan 05:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)