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

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 &bull; @ 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 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 ?
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 &bull; @ 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 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. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 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 Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive toc.
 * Archive 1  30 Aug - 12 Nov 2006
 * Archive 2  9 Sep - 18 Nov 2006
 * Archive 3  14 Oct - 23 Nov 2006
 * Archive 4  16 Nov 2006 - 4 Jan 2007
 * Archive 5  6 Dec 2006 - 14 Feb 2007
 * Archive 6  2 Dec 2006 - 24 Feb 2007
 * Archive 7  12 Dec 2006 - 7 Feb 2007
 * Archive 8  7 Jan - 3 Feb 2007
 * Archive 9  13 Jan - 24 Feb 2007
 * Archive 10  14 Feb - 28 Feb 2007
 * Archive 11  18 Feb - [ ? ] 2007
 * Archive 12  [Empty - not yet in use]

(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 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 Hackney 303 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 Hackney 303 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 Hackney 303 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   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly
A highly biased study of Bill O'Reilly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Bill_O%27Reilly has been added to his criticism article with the results comparing him to a Nazi sympathizer. Regardless of whether the study is valid, it's only purpose is to criticize BOR further and may be libelous. Arzel 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I made some edits that I hope vitiate the POV nature of the study in question. Since the controversy has drawn replies from BOR and a FOX producer, I think it's notable. Best, MoodyGroove 19:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * I still don't think it is notable, but it is nice to see another response. I re-inserted the comment you took out.  It is in the published article near the end of the paper in the discussion section.  Arzel 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Section removed
Special:Contributions/72.139.17.252 posted a BLP/N section about Max Boot with "Fix it, you retards" in the post and "wikipedia, or a hole in the ground?" in the edit summary. I applied unsigned, investigated the situation (article history, diffs, etc.) and removed it.  If any conscientious NPOV editor thinks the section belongs on the noticeboard, please feel free to restore it. — Athaenara ✉ 07:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Followup (1): User again posted, reverted by Crum375. — 00:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Followup (2): User hates Wikipedia. — 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Living people cat
'''Please, take time to check the authenticity of the data I contributed on my self. If you find any of it untrue, delete me completely, but if not, please take away the notice which might imply that I have added things that are not true or accurate. '''Thank you Aleksandar Simic, Composer When I run across articles like 2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident, I add the Living people cat so that it will show up in the related changes tool we use. Often I get reverted repeatedly. Can I get some consensus here as to whether or not this is an appropriate application of the category? - Crockspot 06:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As my edit summary when I restored the category there said, "The point here is that the Biographies of living persons *policy* applies here and Category:Living people keeps the article on WP:BLP patrol." — Athaenara ✉ 07:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Owe you one. - Crockspot 12:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The BLP policy applies to every single article (and every page) we have. violet/riga (t) 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a monitoring thing. Please stop reverting the category. - Crockspot 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, me? I've not reverted anything.  violet/riga (t) 18:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is now listed on the noticeboard, due to edit warring over the category. The category was created exactly for the purpose which I am attempting to use it for. I don't have the time to fool around with a bunch of editors every time I try to apply this cat to a biography fork that needs oversight. - Crockspot 17:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with violetriga. This is clearly not as clear-cut as you (Crockspot) seem to believe. Stemonitis 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not create a Category:Biography of living persons, with Category:Living people as a subcategory. An event such as the "pretzel incident" clearly falls into the category of biography (as would many other things), but without requiring the absurd situation of requiring a pretzel incident to be classified as a person. It would mean that the people who monitor the category would have to monitor one more category, but I think it's worth it. I regularly monitor a couple of dozen categories, and I wouldn't expect the encyclopaedia to change just to make my life easier in that regard. --Stemonitis 17:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone made a similar suggestion yesterday, and I tested it. It doesn't work. "Related changes" does not pick up changed to articles in subcategories. If you list a category within "Living people", only changes to the category itself, and not the articles within it are picked up by related changes. It need the Living people cat directly applied to be picked up by our monitoring tool. - Crockspot 17:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. Instead of checking Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people only, you would then check Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Biography of living persons as well. The fact that one was a subcategory of the other would only be to clarify that Category:Living people is an administrative category, and would have no effect on the functionality. --Stemonitis 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No one uses Category:Living people to find articles. It is the hugest and most unusable category on Wikipedia, so these arguments are without merit. The only useful use of the category (and the reason it was created) was for us to monitor activity that may be libelous. - Crockspot 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See my answer above; this would not be diminished by the addition of a second category. I also don't think it's clear to the average reader that it is a purely administrative category; they may well browse through it for other reasons. I use it to find ill-sorted biographical articles (either no sort key or the wrong sort key), and I dare say others use it for other purposes. Adding a supercategory for articles which are not strictly biographies but which contain material where violations of WP:BLP are likely to occur would seem to solve all the problems with relatively little change. --Stemonitis 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a reasonable enough proposal, but I cannot speak for the entire group. As you can see, it is difficult enough rounding up more than a couple of BLP patrollers at a time. We would have to get everyone on the same page about this. - Crockspot 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No-one has spoken out against it, so I've created Category:Biography of living persons, and put the only appropriate article I know of into it. I will leave it up to the BLP regulars to decide how wide its scope should be — whether articles like political positions of Barack Obama, which are currently not in any such administrative category, should be included, and so on. If it proves to be unworkable in the longer term, then it can be deleted, but please give it a fair go first. I think it could make things much easier. --Stemonitis 06:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The category only had a couple of articles listed in it, and did not appear to be used for monitoring, so I nominated it for CfD, and it was deleted. I was afraid that it was causing confusion, and those articles in it, which were proper bios, were not being monitored. - Dean Wormer 23:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Noticeboard archiving
Just a note that because of mouse issues I won't be archiving for awhile. I know others will pick up the slack. — Athaenara ✉ 00:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your closing templates
You might take a look at your closing templates and shift to a system more like drt and drb. These (DRV) templates keep the section header on the page, but mark the discussion as closed. This means that 1) the links in the table of contents show which discussions are closed, and 2) the links in the table of content actually work. Neither is currently true here. GRBerry 03:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest that bot archiving be considered for this noticeboard, as well as for WP:COIN. The explicit collapse boxes are cute, but they are more suited to something like AFD or DRV where there is a closing event that will always occur. BLPN does have many issues that go away due to inactivity (so that 'resolved' is not 100% true), and time-based archiving would handle that with much less manual labor. Currently ANI (1 day) and AN (2 days) have time-based archiving, as does WP:WQA. BLPN could just be set on a longer timeout, like  14 days. EdJohnston 13:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S.: This is relevant to the two linking problems named by GRBerry because those problems are *caused* by the collapse boxes that are now in use. Bot archiving would not do any collapsing. It would just remove items for inactivity whether 'closed' or not. Other templates such as resolved could still be added if people wanted to. EdJohnston 14:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made the change to blpt. Obviously, this doesn't preclude the use of bot archiving, if that's what people decide they want. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 22:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A query
I don't know if this is the right place or not, if I'm wandering around somewhere I shouldn't be feel free to say so ;) I just have a simple question. It's in regards to the expression "contentious material". Some editors have taken to removing huge chunks of information stating that it was contentious because it's unsourced, nothing else, nothing related to the specific content being removed just "It should be sourced or it should be removed". I guess what I want to know is this: Doesn't contentious refer to specific content, not a general state of "unsourced-ness"? Thanks in advance. MPJ-DK 16:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How are BLP guidelines interpreted for a subject who is dead?
This is a serious question - obviously we always should source articles, but do the particularly stringent BLP rules apply for a subject who is no longer alive? Specifically I'm talking about the removal of material that hasn't been adequately sourced(BLP) vs. adding a "Fact" tag requesting citations (most others). Thanks. Tvoz | talk 03:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:V is the guiding policy. - Crockspot 04:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, as it is everywhere in the encyclopedia - but WP:V allows for tags to be added requesting citations, I believe, whereas WP:BLP seems to require questionable material to be removed if it isn't well sourced - my question is whether those BLP rules can or should be applied to a subject who is not alive. Tvoz | talk 04:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * BLP applies only to living persons. So the fact tag is the polite way to go. THF 04:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought - one other question: are BLP concerns only relevant to the subject of an article - so if the subject is dead but other people referred to are still alive, do BLP rules take precedence? Tvoz | talk 04:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that part is a misnomer. BLP doesn't apply just to biographies, but to all information about living people. THF 04:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Not trying to be dense, but I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing: an article about a dead person refers to some people who are still alive in some sections. Are those sections in the dead person's article covered by the more stringent BLP rules requiring removal of questionable material rather than fact tags? thx Tvoz | talk 04:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) In the Princess Diana article, material about Princess Diana and Dodi need comply only with WP:V, and gets a fact tag if not sourced. Material about Prince Charles in the Princess Diana article is subject to BLP and gets immediately deleted if not properly sourced. Examples: Hope this helps. THF 04:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC) (clarified 13:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC) in response to B point of 4:43 below)
 * The false statement "Prince Charles ordered Diana and Dodi killed" would be subject to BLP and would be immediately deleted if not properly sourced.
 * "Diana and Dodi planned to have a Muslim wedding" would be subject to WP:V and get a fact tag (and eventually deleted if not properly sourced).
 * By extension, "Diana and Dodi planned to have a Muslim wedding, causing Charles to order them killed" would be edited to "Diana and Dodi planned to have a Muslim wedding."
 * Perfectly clear - thanks very much. That's exactly what I was looking for. Tvoz | talk 04:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that ultimately, unsourced material needs to be either sourced or removed. To use your example of "Diana and Dodi planned to have a Muslim wedding", there are three possibilities with regards to this statement:
 * It is a false statement - they had no intention of having a Muslim wedding
 * It is a true statement, but unprovable because it relies on unpublished information, rumor, etc.
 * It is a true statement and can be sourced, given time and effort.
 * In the first two cases, having the statement in the article is still a bad thing, even if the people involved are dead. Without doing research, we have no way of knowing which of the three is the case. So we have to use some good judgment.  If the statement doesn't seem reasonable, it should be removed, rather than being left there with a fact tag.  If the statement is probably true, in your judgment, ok, put a fact tag on it, but if no source can be found given time, it still needs to be removed.  Simply having a subject other than a living person is not a license to leave false/unsourcable information in an article for eternity. -- B  04:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this, and did not mean to imply otherwise. If you don't know for sure that it is false, however, the polite thing to do is to put the fact tag on and give editors a chance to fix it.  If it stays unsourced for a week or two, then remove it.  In the case of a BLP, one doesn't wait a week or two: source controversial or negative claims immediately, or they go. THF 04:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:V ultimately allows material to be removed. The current wording is a bit weaker than it was a few months ago. There wasn't any talk about allowing people time to find sources. You have to use common sense. If it is relatively harmless, use a fact tag. If it's more contentious material, move it to talk or remove it, and explain why you did in talk. BLP applies to any claims made about living people in any article or talk pages. There has been some informal extension of BLP to the recently deceased. It's not like the minute someone dies, all bets are off. BLP is really just a conglomeration of the other core policies, with some extra penalties, and less discussion required for removals. - Crockspot 05:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Jimbo Wales stated unambiguously that arguing someone is dead should not be used as an argument that BLP does not apply: . Quatloo 06:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * BLP isn't an invitation to smear the dead. I interpret Wales' remarks to mean that we shouldn't engage in inaccurate writing even if the subject isn't living. But there is a clear divide between the legal and ethical issues affecting living people, and those affecting the rest of the encyclopedia's subjects. That's why we have this policy to ensure special treatment where it's most needed.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is really interesting, and I'd like to thank THF, B, and everyone else for clearing up some questions that have been burning at the back of my mind for a while; when the subject is deceased, but the article refers to one or more living persons. I'd noticed some of this in the Diana article as well, and while I did not take action, I did wonder how such matters are/should be addressed. Thank you all for this informative, and helpful discussion! Ariel ♥ Gold 11:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The BLP rules are to reduce the likelihood of Wikipedia from being sued. As estates of the recently dead have the exact same standing to sue as the living person did, logic would dictate that BLP should be followed. What Jimbo said was unambiguous, that the argument "that person is dead" should not be used as the excuse for not following BLP. And yet I have seen multiple people make exactly that argument, even as recently as several days ago with the Aaron Russo article -- with Russo's body not having even reached room temperature. Quatloo 22:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "As estates of the recently dead have the exact same standing to sue as the living person did"' -- Ask Godwin. Not true. You can't libel the dead, which is why we see so many stories about J. Edgar Hoover in a dress. THF 22:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, there are more restrictions on the dead. However, note that defamation that impacts the commercial value of the estate is a perfectly valid tort claim. Furthermore some states have their protections spelled out: In Rhode Island, libel and slander is a valid tort for up to 3 months after the death of the individual. In other states, the estate may assume when the actions of the tort occurred prior to the death of the individual. Quatloo 23:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The BLP rules are not only here to prevent us from being sued, but also (as Will Beback said) for ethical reasons. It's worse to accuse a person of doing something terrible than to accuse iron to melt at 1000 degrees. This also applies for people that died recently, and I think that with those subjects we still have to be more sensitive than for general articles, regardless of what the legal situation may be. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nature of the sourcing
Is it sufficient to write contentious material about a living person and then simply include an external link for sourcing without adding an inline cite or some kind of footnote-style reference? I believe that the professional way to do it is to require inline citations at the end of the sentence or paragraph containing the material. However I am concerned thato some people may be depending on the EL's for their only sourcing. -JodyByak, yak, yak 11:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some kind of citation in the article body is preferred, whether that's technically what we call the "inline" method (you see the full citation in brackets or link in the article body), or a footnote method where you see just a number that points to a reference section at the bottom. However, in less finished articles some people just put all the sources in a "references" section at the bottom without citations in the article body.  That's discouraged but it happens.  At a very minimum these references ought to be distinguished from the "external links" section, which points readers to additional material that is not in the article.  Careful sourcing and citation is doubly important where living people are involved because we are trying to be extra careful about unreliable, derogatory, or contentious information.Wikidemo 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with relying on an external link is that an editor may remove an EL for some reason down the road, and they may not notice that it is being depended on as a source. Anything that is supporting material in an article should be in the "References" section, either as a footnote, or as a general reference. - Dean Wormer 23:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving by bot?
Is it possible to use MiszaBot II or something similar to automatically archive this page? Er, that is, this project page. Not this page. :)--Moonriddengirl 19:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it possible? Yes, with caveats. Could I set it up in less than 5 minutes? Yes. However, it would mean that the "ongoing BLP issues" section would disappear into the archives. It has timestamps, so the bot would archive it. --Darkwind (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, now that I think about it, there's a way around that part. Move the "ongoing issues" section to a new page (BLP/N/Ongoing, or something), and transclude it, and then bot archival would work quite well. --Darkwind (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's a good idea, but it seemed like it might help cut down some on the growth factor of the page. It gets pretty big. :) --Moonriddengirl 02:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there an existing consensus as to how old/stale a discussion has to be before it gets archived? If so, we can try bot archiving as a trial; if it doesn't work out, it can always be turned off.  If we don't have such a consensus, we might want to discuss that aspect first -- are we talking 7 days, 10, 14? etc. --Darkwind (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the consensus is 15 days. --Moonriddengirl 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. The only thing that I see that will have to be handled manually is that discussions may be archived without the "closed" templates, if they just age to 15 days without actively being closed out; someone will have to review the archive periodically and add the closing templates if we want everything collapsed and pretty.  I'd say if we don't have any arguments in the next three or four days, we can pull the "ongoing issues" into a separate, transcluded page and then set up the bot archival. --Darkwind (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Bot archiving saves a lot of manual labor. Recently WP:COIN has enabled archiving by MiszaBot. The issues that have been archived so far do not have closing templates. My own suggestion is to use resolved to record closing status, the way it is done at WP:WQA. This means the closing boxes aren't strictly necessary. EdJohnston 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idead. A 15 days-old message archived sounds decent.--Tasc0 02:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So is this consensus then? A bot is a good idea? Because I have no real idea how to do what Darkwind is saying up there about separate transcluded pages and bot archival set-up and whatnot. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bot archiving sounds good to me, at 15 days. It's a lot of work to archive by hand. - Crockspot 20:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, was on a wikibreak for vacation. I'm back now, and as there seems to be a consensus that Bot Archival Is A Good Thing, I'll set it up later tonight or first thing tomorrow morning. --Darkwind (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that someone is going ahead with this! EdJohnston 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was actually able to take care of it shortly after I posted earlier (I had more time than I expected). MiszaBot's next run should be in about 2 hours or so, and we should see some archival action. --Darkwind (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the first night's run seemed to work rather well - it archived 34 threads, and brought the page down to 158KB from nearly 300KB. --Darkwind (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fabulous! Thank you for moving ahead with that. 158KB is plenty big enough. :D --Moonriddengirl 12:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reporting possible violations on talk pages
This is an old edit that appears to me to be accusing two named British politicians (both Jewish)of being something to do with an anti-child pornography operation. I'm wanting an experienced opinion on whether it violates WP:BLP. How and where should I raise it? --Peter cohen 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Header, unfamiliar abbreviation
The header "To report a possible BLP violation" should read "To report a possible violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy." (Because "BLP" is an unfamiliar abbreviation to most people.) I tried to make the change myself, but there appears no way to do so on the Editing page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed template change
I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox.  MBisanz  talk 13:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy
The CIA map shows Rockall in a different position than the black and white map. Geo Swan (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That "He cannot carry on his relationship with Gemma Ward because he is now dead" sounds asinine, change it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.60.132 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

where should I mention this?
This cat - Resume frauds and controversies - seems like it could be problematic. Would someone with more experience than me please have a look at it? Dan Beale-Cocks 22:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations for content unrelated to notability
I've been editing a page of a person notable for a specific political cause that runs contrary to the aims of another group. Someone from that group (who happens to have a history of edit warring and vandalizing related pages) is insisting on citations for two lines of peripheral background information I inserted about the subject's family, such as proof of his wife's occupation, that he's indeed married to her and of his genetic relationship to another notable family member. Are these citations really neccessary? I see many other pages where this data isn't required. Short of asking the subject for his marriage certificate and genealogical background, I don't see how anyone can abide by this. Thanks for the help. - MC Rufus (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What page are you talking about? Jons63 (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Tom Freda which is at AfD now. Benji boi 06:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the corrections. But what about the citation needed for being related to Robert Winters? Is this bio fine as a reference? http://www.canadian-republic.ca/bio_tomfreda.html or does it have to be independent? Thanks again. - MC Rufus (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say use it and qualify by saying "according to CRC's website ___", the more refs you add likely the better as they are a political figure in the media. Benji boi 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - MC Rufus (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns
The section Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard could stand to be cleaned up a bit. Much of the content is dated and should either be summarized and archived or possibly completely removed. Jeepday (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of it should be archived, but other parts wouldn't make a bad BLPN FAQ.  MBisanz  talk 15:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal phone number
There's an article I have spotted and one of its old revisions has what purports to be the subjects phone number. I think that particular revision needs deleting where is the correct place to report it? - X201 (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests for oversight. Or you can send a mail from within Wikipedia to User:Oversight. Remember to include the diff and a quick explanation, and it should be delete in a few minutes. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sent. - X201 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Doc's BLP watch.
I am experimenting with a new alert system to draw attention to BLP related debates. Any comment or feedback would be good. See: User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch.--Docg 19:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)