Wikipedia talk:Basic dignity

Started

 * I saw lots of people starting to redlink to this, so I created a stub policy that other editors could add to and/or discuss. Smee 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I essayed it, as it's merely a standard interpretation of our polices (I think), moved it to the Wikipedia: namespace and made the WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY a redirect. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. Starting to look nice.  Smee 16:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I like this
But "to document such ridicule" is wrong - if the ridicule has attained multiple non-trivial mentions in significant reliable sources, then the article could exist. It would not, however, be about the person; rather, it would be about the ridicule itself. Star Wars kid would be an example. Proto  ►  16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the thing that makes Star Wars Kid different is the lawsuit aspect of it. If SWK never got any father than forum people going "LOLZ LOOKIT TEH FAT NERD!!!" then we wouldn't have an article on him.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Making this a guideline
This is exactly the kind of thing I was saying would be a good idea to Doc. Glasgow. How do we go about converting it from an essay to a guideline? Dave 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we even need it? Attack pages are already speedily deleted, so what's left?  I strongly question the need for a guideline or policy that comes out of a flawed "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" comment at a contentious DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we ought to act ethically if at all possible, but we can't go around applying individual ethics (or even worse, collective ethics). To do so would have all the known disadvantages associated with intuitionist moral arguement... but if we can codify some sort of policy and gather consensus behind it then everyone wins.


 * Ultimately, all votes to delete an article are based upon an IDONTLIKEIT somewhere that led to policy, or upon one of the five pillars. Dave 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have any clue as to your second paragraph, but there's acting ethically and then there's going overboard. I'm not seeing anything that could be covered here that isn't already covered elsehwere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
Just to toss in my $0.02 cents here, perhaps we might also want to examine the wisdom of leaving certain in-house discussions public? For example: ANI, ArbCom, RfA, AfD? Many of these absolutely do accumulate what could be regarded as "documented disparagement" of a living person. Especially in the ArbCom cases, where complainants are allowed to say pretty much anything they want about someone at the evidence and workshop pages, regardless of whether or not such charges have any truth whatsoever. I do understand that there's a good reason for temporarily suspending WP:NPA and allowing people to speak freely during a case, so that the Arbitrators can obtain a clear and full picture of the situation. But perhaps afterwards, we might want to consider refactoring or sealing (deleting) some of these discussions, so that they're only available to those with admin access? --Elonka 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * An interesting idea, but I don't know... that opens up the door to some tricky situations... Smee 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Recent additions removed
Walton monarchist89 has edited this essay recently. I've removed one of his additions, specifically:


 * What basic human dignity is not


 * Basic human dignity should not be interpreted as a reason for deleting articles which are sourced, verifiable, and written in a neutral tone. Such articles are not attack pages, and do not come under CSD G10. If an editor believes that they unnecessarily disparage their subject, or do not make an adequate demonstration of notability, then they can be nominated for deletion through the articles for deletion process, and opened to community discussion

I think this is inappropriate to the tone of an essay. Essays express an opinion that is held by one or more people, it doesn't express opinions about whether basic concepts such as human dignity are or are not appropriate reasons in and of themselves for deletion of problem pages. That's a matter for guidelines, policy and community consensus. --Tony Sidaway 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll write my own essay. Walton Assistance!  18:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect?
Should this essay and the redirects WP:DIGNITY and WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY just be changed into redirects to Biographies of living persons? The latter is policy and covers pretty much the same ground. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect
I've proposed Basic dignity for merging into Attack page. I think most of it is relevant here (although, alternatively, it could go into BLP). I've been working recently on Wikipedia information pages, examining whether they may be merged, updated, or expanded. Basic dignity may be one for merging.

I believe the concept for the page originally emerged from the idea to take text from an arbitration decision that found that respect for basic human dignity was implicit in the Biographies of living persons policy, and make it explicit.

What's problematic is that information pages are supposed to expand upon concepts in policies and guidelines, but this page is, for the most part, an orphan. I think the reason for that is because it largly repeats, rather than expands on, the policies and guidelines. Specifically, the first paragraph repeats Wikipedia:Attack page, and the first sentence of the second paragraph repeats WP:SOAP. The second sentence is a norm, but doesn't define itself. The third sentence is also a norm, and while defined clearly, isn't actually instructive in any practical sense. Last, the third paragraph again repeats Wikipedia:Attack pages.

The nutshell too is emblematic of the problem. It's supposed to be a summary, but it actually offers nothing substantive except wikilinks to other pages, and that's exactly the issue here.

If there is reason to give this page actual content, I'm interested to hear it. However, right now, I believe this page isn't useful and can be merged. If it does have a use that I'm missing, the immediate problem is that, as an orphan, it's not being seen, and we need to figure out how best to resolve that (and, again, that solution may be merging). --Bsherr (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well. The solution I propose is redirecting the page to WP:BLP, since that's where the ArbCom stated the concept was implicit. Any objections? --Bsherr (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, objections. Looks like you have a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, as I made very clear to you why this shouldn't be merged there.  It has a broader scope than BLP, appplying across the whole project and not just to living persons but all subjects. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Starblind, I read your comment to me on your user talk page. I posted here subsequently, as I advised you I would. I expected that you'd respond here so that anyone else participating would have the benefit of your feedback. (And IDIDNTHEARTHAT is about an individual not accepting consensus, not about an individual not conceding to another individual's assertions. I haven't done either. I'm just looking to discuss this. If you'd like to, that's great, and I'm pleased to work with you. If not, that's fine too, but please understand that it doesn't obligate me to also drop it.)
 * Could you tell me more about how you view the scope of the policy? Right now, at least some of the text of the policy indicates that it only applies to living persons. --Bsherr (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I know you mentioned deletion discussions (I assume you mean conduct during?) as an example of the scope of the policy. Right now, the page doesn't speak directly to this, and I think a possibility would be to rewrite it to match this and some of your other suggestions for its scope. --Bsherr (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I told you on my talk page why it couldn't be redirected to BLP, and you STILL put a request for that here, which hardly speaks toward acting in good faith. BLP and the attack page policy are by nature cut as narrowly as possible, because to interpret them overly broadly would stifle us as an encyclopedia: not everything negative in any article makes it deletable as an attack, for example, else we'd have people deleting Adolph Hitler for claiming he was involved in the holocaust.  Since these polices are thus necessarily narrow, Basic Dignity is meant to be as broad as possible, that subjects should be treated with basic dignity, and that while our job as an encyclopedia sometimes gives us a responsibility to say bad things about people (and companies, and groups, and nations, etc) we should not revel in it and continue to treat subjects with dignity.  If you want a specific example, Daniel Brandt had an article at one time.  It certainly wasn't an attack page and was written so as not to be a BLP violation by the letter of the policy.  However, it caused the subject a great deal of grief and was constantly getting AFDed or redirected or other things so it was a regular topic of discussion which only lead to more abuse and it was clear that the article was being used as a weapon, so to speak, to offend someone the community didn't particularly like (with good reason, but that's beside the point).  That's why the Basic Dignity as cast as broadly as possible, it's meant to apply to every possible situation and regardless of the details.  In other words, unlike BLP and Attack, there is no way around it.  Yeah, it could probably use a bit of tweaking to better reflect that, but that's a rewrite job, not a redirect issue. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Starblind, I don't think it's bad faith for me to merely propose something you've told me you disagree with. Like I said, I just want to discuss it.
 * As to the example you provide, are you saying that cetain pages, although they are not attack pages, should be deleted as violations of Basic Dignity? Or was the page not deleted, and Basic Dignity governs the situation in some other way? If Basic Dignity is relied on as authority, it really must be a guideline, not an information page.
 * I'm concerned the page does not speak to the scope you think it has. To make sure it does, may I suggest we make a list of the situations to which Basic Dignity is meant to apply? Then we can check the page against the list, and determine what action is needed. I'll need your help. --Bsherr (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It applies in every situation, that's the whole point. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Foundation BLP resolution
In April 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation published its resolution on BLPs that in part says we should take human dignity into account when adding or removing information. While most of that resolution is now unambiguously embodied in en.Wikipedia's policy, this point about human dignity is not. The nearest we come to it is "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." In the current Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute it is clear that a lot of editors exclude insulting or offending a person from their definition of "harm."

I've removed other content from this essay that is already well covered by existing policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)