Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive 4

Proposed template for talk pages where subjects have requested we not include their full date of birth
Learning about the date of birth issues at talk:Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) I've proposed a template to be placed at the top of talk pages where the subject has requested we not include their full date of birth. The mockup of this template is at User:Thryduulf/DoB year only and improvements and comments are solicited. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral on whether we need such a template, but if we do, I'd say the mockup is much too wordy. FormerIP (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Really? Limiting content based on the wishes of the subject? I'd be opposed to honoring such a request if the actual date may be found in reliable sources at any point in the future. Having read the conversation at talk, the real issue seems to be access and use of quality sources; WP:BLPSPS on one end and WP:RS on the other. What isn't alright is people citing to no source or an unreliable source. Unsupported information should simply be removed through normal editing and talk page commentary, carefully evaluating any source given for its reliability. Especially if a date of birth were undisputed, the wishes of the subject to exclude it would be laughable. We're not out to hurt anyone, but subjects' wishes aren't what an encyclopedia's business is. Any note or template to keep information out should be based on sourcing. Not the subject's wishes. JFHJr (㊟) 18:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I personally agree with John, policy says that we honor a verified request from the subject to include only the year (WP:BLPPRIVACY).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is policy - see WP:DOB. If you disagree with the policy, propose that it is changed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure how many requests for suppression they are but the standard OTRS template should be OK. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know, either, but my sense is there are more disputes about the DOB than there are requests for only the birth year. I don't see why we need another template.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this when adding a report
At the bottom of the main BLP page, one of the categories listed is "American Jews". Was this somehow added as a result of the Adam Yauch discussion? I'm not sure why it's there, but I can't imagine it should be, and I don't know how to remove it. Blake Burba (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Dr.K.! Always on top of things... Blake Burba (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It was a pleasure Blake. Thank you for kind comments. Nice seeing you again. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Directly related BLP related RfC
Maybe this is a dubious place to post this, I don't know. But there is, and has been, extensive discussion at Talk:Bob Dylan regarding how to describe and categorize the article. The point of contention is the subject's current religious affiliation, if any. There is a question regarding WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and, obviously, WP:BLP. I am not sure if WP:BLP directly addresses this specific question, and would very much welcome the input of any and all parties. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Introducing WP:RS/N/L a noticeboard for large clean ups of Reliable Sourcing issues as promoted from WP:RS/N
Dear noticeboard colleagues,

WP:RS/N, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard occasionally comes across suspected large incidents of extremely poor sourcing. A decision was taken today as the result of two large scale incidents occurring in close proximity to create a new sub-noticeboard for dealing specifically with large scale suspected clean-ups requirements. This noticeboard is the large scale clean-ups noticeboard portion of RS/N. In some cases BLPs are an issue, such as with the misuse of the unreliable source independentpoliticalreport.com which was used in over 180 cases inappropriately, over more than 110 articles, many of these BLPs. RS/N is not equipped to deal with maintaining large scale editorial work, even though it detects it on a reasonably regular basis (without trying to). As such, I commend WP:RS/N/L to BLP/N editors. Many of you may enjoy the simple task of observing completely unacceptable sources in BLP articles and nuking the source and the claim attached. Others may come to love the deep (and perverse?) understanding of what makes a Reliable Source in wikipedia's terms and enjoy dealing with other, more complex, cases of poor use of sources (at the moment we have two potentially poor uses of Young Earth Creationist sources, but, on the other hand, some uses are perfectly fine within RS policy!). As such, I hope some editors may appreciate the invitation, and the RS/N community welcomes feedback from our colleagues as always. Happy editing, friend noticeboard denizens! Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Great idea! Binksternet (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wiki image policy collides with guidelines for biographies of living persons (or at least with their personal rights)
Wikipedia image policy says that copyrighted pictures of a living persons (and existing bands) have to be replaced by free pictures. This can be harmful for a career if the free picture is older and does not represent the current image of the artist anymore. Have a look at the article Rob De Luca and the history page. Continous swap between old (free) and new (promotional) picture. He himself wants the new picture up, Wikipedia policies say it has to be the old one.

I mean, if he has the rights to have his whole biography deleted ( as far as I remember by law) how can it be he has no opportunity to choose what picture is shown as main picture in his Wikipedia article.

More detailed info: Nard ( Hablemonos ) ( Let's talk ) 's Talk Page. He keeps relinking the old pic and nominated the new pic for deletion (again, the same pic was deleted before due to copyright issues, the photographer agrees with the usage on Wikipedia, but is not willing to give up all his copyrights.). From Wikipedia point of view - without any background knowledge - Nard the Bard is absolutely right, I would have done the same in his position. But somehow this doesn't make sense....

I'd like to invite everyone to join the discussion on how to change policies that this makes sense again.

Thank you!

Moonslide (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a few points I would like to make. The photographer doesn't ever have to give up his copyright. If an image is uploaded to commons he has to allow modifications and commercial use but can legally insist that all versions show him as the copyright holder in a prominant place beside the picture. The subject maintains his 'personality' rights. This means that no one can use the image of them to sell products in their name etc. nor change the image in an unflattering way. The commons has details and probably better advice than I on this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A few more points. A person can ask for the article on them to be deleted, but we do not need to comply.  No one has the right to have the article about them deleted.  Next from User talk:Nard the Bard, once a picture has been given a copyright the person can not change it to a more restrictive copyright.  If the record company wants a specific image of him on the article there is a way to do it.  They can pay a photographer to take an image and release it with a compatible copyright, it might cost them more for the photographer to do this but that is their decision.   GB fan 13:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See Attribution (copyright) and personality rights.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC) I have emailed the record company with a link to the OTRS page on commons. If he wishes a better image he will have to provide one under a free licence. I recommend commons because then other language wikis can use it as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For those who care, 2012060110000679 is related. The studio is not releasing the newer photo as anything but fair use. I don't care what happens to this article and I'm not going to engage in silly debates over Wikipedia's policies. In fact I will most likely not visit this discussion again. WP:NFCC is very plain, any photo of a living person must be free. If you don't like the older photo you don't have to use it. If the studio ever grants the free license on the newer photo it can be used on Wikipedia. -Nard ( Hablemonos ) ( Let's talk ) 14:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As this is an encyclopedia not a promotional or personal website then I cant see a problem with a three-year old image that is free. The individual has been active since 1985 so in encyclopedia terms a three-year old image of the individual performing is reasonably current. That said if an alternate free image becomes available then that should be up to a talk page consensus, we dont have to use the latest image. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here to promote someone's career. If someone would like a newer photo of himself/herself to be eligible for use, (s)he need only have someone take a current photo and release the image under an appropriate license. If the photographer of a particular image is unwilling to release their images under a free license, we will respect their wishes, but we will respect them by not using the nonfree photo. The subject can always have someone else willing to do such a copyright release take the photo, or take one themselves on something like a self-timer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See: Image_use_policy is seems that we should leave it out for now for "Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject."--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I dont see the connection you may need to explain how an image of a musician at a concert during a public performance can possibly "unfairly demean or ridicule the subject". To me (and remember I have no idea who the chap is until I read the article a few hoursa ago) it looks like a muscian playing a guitar at a concert, the article says he is a guitarist. I think you need to explain the logic behind the connection to demean or riducle the subject to make a case to remove the image from the article. (And I presume we are talking about File:Rob de luca.jpg MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You should read Canoe1967's other arguments at Talk:Rob De Luca. GB fan 21:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh, thanks I hadnt read the talk page discussion, I expected it to be something serious I had missed in the image rather than something trivial. Answer is simple - put the free image back close this and the talk page discussions and we can get on with something more important. MilborneOne (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As near as I can determine, the argument is that his hairstyle from 3 years ago is, in Canoe1967's opinion, not compatible with the individual's desired image now. I've replied on the article's talk page. In any case, I'm not sure what the "contentious claim" is in the photo or how it is "poorly sourced", unless there is some claim somewhere that the photo was, for some unknown reason, doctored to make it look like he (gasp!) had long hair 3 years ago. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on this discussion and the one on the article's talk page, I have restored the image. GB fan 22:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed
There is  an RfC about the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that could use some input, if anyone is so inclined. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

BLPN-notice
A directive to notify people who are mentioned in discussion was recently added to the header. Personally whilst I agree with doing that I think probably it is enough to put a notice on the talk page of the article in most cases. If there is a specific detailed discussion about editors a notice is called for but most should be following the talk page if they are involved anyway. I certainly feel some sort of notification is called for. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts. Sometimes BLPN discussions just get overrun by the same people arguing at the article talk page.  The point of noticeboards is to get some outside views.  This is less likely if those of us who are regular there log in to find a thread already containing a dozen paragraphs by involved participants.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the directive. The justification for it, in my opinion, is the same as for a place like ANI. A BLPN discussion is generally a complaint about the actions of an individual, and the thinking on Wikipedia has always been that when you bring an individual's actions up in any venue, you have to notify them to make sure they're aware of the discussion, because they have the right to defend their actions for themselves (except in certain specific excluded situations, like sockpuppet investigations). BLP is one of the most sensitive and serious accusations that can be brought against an editor, so not only shouldn't it be an exception, but it should hold especially true here.  Equazcion  ( talk )  19:30, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that approach casts our discussions on BLPN in an unconstructive way. BLPN is about working out difficult issues on an article; it's not a place to make accusations in the sense that an editor will then be sanctioned.  That's what ANI is for, and that's where the notification requirement is sensible.  Discussions on BLPN are more likely to be productive if already-involved participants don't take over the threads.  They shouldn't be excluded, but we shouldn't seek to invite their early participation when this will simply replicate talk-page arguments.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear that, but the reporting party is involved and of course already here to participate. If we could make BLPN discussions entirely made up of uninvolved people, maybe that would be beneficial... but since we can't, I think it would make for an unbalanced discussion if only the reporting editor is here. At least the adder of the material should be notified for balance.  Equazcion  ( talk )  20:37, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Absent any consensus to add this, I've removed it until such a consensus may or may not form. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced "alleged Nazi war criminals" are probably an issue, yes?
I've added a couple references to Helmut Oberlander, which appears to have had its references stripped some time back, but there's a lot of unsourced material in the article, and more eyes, editing knives, and sources would be appreciated. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Any unsourced allegation of this type should be immediately reverted/removed. AFAIK That is policy coming from Jimbo himself. "Per WP:verifiability, (4th sentence) "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Note 3 on that page: "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."-Wales, Jimmy. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006. . - 220  of  Borg 03:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This sort of claim is occasionally placed in Prescott Bush and other articles as well -- not just living persons. IMHO, it is the sort of edit for which editors should be barred, even if during political "silly season".  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Mass 'alteration' of dates and removal of death/divorce from info boxes
is making many apparently non-MOS edits like, to the spouse sections of BLP info boxes. they are 'shortening' the dates with summary "Easier to read". Of more concern, they are also removing the reasons for 'seperation' ie. death /divorce, ie. "1960–1976; divorced" to just "1960–76", which seems odd. Could any very BLP issue aware editors take a look at the situation? Regards, 220  of  Borg 12:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this a non-issue, as I have had no response to this query? I have reverted an edit by IP editor '179.69', and then moved the comment inside the bracketed dates . To me this 'looks' better than using a line break to put it on the next line, so it doesn't word wrap and have "his" on one line and "death" on it's own beneath. Is this format correct? Please revert and advise me if not. Regards, 220  of  Borg 02:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All edits to BLP articles aren't necessarily BLP issues. This isn't. Try the article's talk page. Churn and change (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. They were removing the reason for the end of peoples marriages. Also, this issue covers multiple articles, so suggesting "Try the article's talk page", does not seem to help resolve the issue. Several editors queried the editor on their talk page, so it's not just me. - 220  of  Borg 13:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a "This article is being discussed at ..." template?
Is there a template that could be added to articles to say "This article is being discussed at the biography of living persons noticeboard" (and similar pages)? Or if not, could someone make one? Regards,  Esowteric + Talk  11:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a template has been created without any discussion and is already in use. I think it may be counter-productive. Although we bring articles here that have significant BLP issues, the best case scenario is for people to ultimately enter discussion on the article talk page once the BLPN triage is complete. Is there someone who will remove each template once the discussion here is closed? Although the intentions are sound I believe this template has the potential to confuse and fracture discussion.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 02:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion at Village pump (proposals) which was likely prompted by Esowteric's question here. I've agreed to keep an eye on how the template is used and will report back in a month or so here. I strongly agree that BLP article talk page readers should be notified when there is a discussion on BLPN because otherwise it could be forum shopping. Why would this fracture discussion instead of unify it? &mdash; Cup co  02:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, I hadn't seen that. Many thanks.  Esowteric + Talk  08:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link and explanation Cupco. My main concern is the monitoring of the ticket. As long as it is removed (or modified) once the BLPN discussion is complete then I feel better about its use. My overriding concern was that the template would be left there even though the BLPN discussion was closed, and that individuals wishing to discuss issues related to the article would be going to the noticeboard to do so instead of attempting communication on the talk page first.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been discussing automating removal with Bot authors. I'll keep an eye on it and come up with something. &mdash; Cup co  22:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not looking good so far. Nobody who has created a new section has added the template yet. And the section headings aren't always the article names, so it's obvious the instructions are widely ignored to begin with. What if there was a small infobox such as the one at right in each section that a bot could find a reliable link to the corresponding article for each section with? Then we could keep the talk page templates current automatically. Would it be easier to get people to add these sorts of mini-infoboxes than add the template to the talk pages? &mdash; Cup co  05:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Link to rev-del
Should we put a link to the revision deletion IRC at the top of the BLPN somewhere? I assume IPs can use it and avoid the Striesand effect, etc. Bold and red would be nice. Thoughts? I doubt we need consensus as it is not controversial. The rev-del team may wish to word it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the point of the board?
Seriously, what is the point of this board anymore? There appears to be almost no interest in upholding BLP issues. They are brought to this board, ignored and the issue are never resolved. This is problematic of all the boards for that matter. WP won't last much longer under like this. Arzel (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ImminentDeathOfWikiPredicted Slightly more seriously, you'll notice that issues that are brought up here are, in fact, dealt with. That doesn't always mean dealt with in the way that the person bringing them up wants. --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is best placed at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. GiantSnowman 14:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem a bit jaded, Arzel - are there particular examples you're thinking of? It's very rare that a post to this board gets no response at all (which is what "ignored" means). I would also say that the vast majority of posts to this board subsequently get satisfactory action taken. If you want a more aggressive approach to BLP-policing, possibly you should be campaigning to overturn the community's decision regarding User:You really can. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a current approximate 30% ignore rate, with most of them ready to drop off the board. I would say that this is not rare.  Arzel (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess you could say I am a little jaded because WP has become less of an encylopedia than a place for editors to push political agendas. It has always been somewhat bad, but has become much worse in the past year.  Take for example Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 which is violating WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:BLP by the use of partial quotes in section headings purely to attack these living people.  This has been brought to this board with no response.  Thus you have a cadre of activist editors, whos only purpose on WP is to push political talking points and attack living people doing so with impunity.  WP has become a steaming pile of POV pushing crap outside of a few subtopics, and if the subject of the article is a politican you can be guarenteed that it will be nothing more than an attempt to destroy the subject, moreso if the subject is at all conservative.  This board is completely worthless in upholding the basic WP policies that this board is designed to support.  Arzel (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This board is simply a way to draw attention to issues related to WP:BLP so that editors interested in upholding the policy can offer an opinion or directly intervene. The real problems are that there seem to be very few people interested in enforcing the policy, there is almost no effort made to remind or educate users of the policy before edit a BLP, and we are not using the few tools we have which will prevent policy violations (i.e., permanent semi-protection of all BLPs and flagged revisions). This entire discussion should probably be moved to the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Bush Derangement Syndrome
This article is being nominated for deletion. We need more eyes on both the article and AFD. There are clearly issues needing to be addressed. Use of primary sources, blogs from non experts, embedded links in the body of the article etc. Undue weight to Charles Krauthammer, and the examples and Derivatives section (badly sourced, if at all) is three or four times the size of the rest of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As a long-term editor of this article, I find it very, very hard to see how anyone could believe these statements. Especially anyone who bothers to look at the (relevant parts of) talk page and its archives. Except for HDS (see my question on the talk page), the examples and derivatives all have perfectly acceptable, though not ideal, sources.
 * "Undue weight to Charles Krauthammer"?! Only since most of the article was deleted ([C/f this version).
 * BTW, since I asked for some explanation of why this article violates BLP rules, I have seen plenty of claims that it does and not one word justifying those claims. Can anyone find any controversial claim about any named or identifiable living person/people in the version linked above?
 * CWC 04:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can! The part where it indicates Former President Bush is a deranged frothing lunatic. Lots42 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Errr, what? There is no claim that anyone is "frothing" or "lunatic", and "derangement" is purely tongue-in-cheek. CWC 01:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Auto-archive?
Why isn't this page set to automatically archive? We have discussion here dating back to 2009 (or more) that haven't been touched since then. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi upon looking into this it is written over at the archiving bot "how to" page: Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there.
 * Well this TP isn't exactly a flurry of activity, I have just manually archived to fill up Archive 2, and just about filled Archive 3 with 58k (the others are just under 60k). Do other users feel the need for automatic archiving? Manual seems to be okay to me, as long as someone remembers to do it ;-)  Captain Screebo Parley! 14:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested mods to BLP Notice Template!
Hey, this is for all the regulars who help out on the BLPN. As you may have noticed the board receives quite a lot of posts where editors have to guess the article in question, or the name's there but it's not wikilinked, and so on, and a lot of BLP helpers spend their time putting square brackets around names or using the template.

I went over to the Village Pump to see if it's possible to force the wikilinked article title, apparently not (well the suggested code was not really what I had in mind), and it would also lead to Please fix the info about my aunt's dob, Sheila Stevens as section titles.

So the solution appears to be to modify the BLP notice template BLPN_notice and request users to wikilink the article title OR use the template mentioned above. I have created a version in a sandbox here: User:Captain_Screebo/BLPNotice_Template. Obviously, this will affect several users on a well-frequented board so I prefer to post here and get feedback before boldly implementing it. I'm sure that we will still get the odd unlinked post but I have tried to make it more explicit, i.e. bolding the "provide article" bit and indicating the means to help us help the posters, by correctly wikilinking or templating the article they are referring to.

It appears clear to me, any feedback before we give it a try? Cheers!  Captain Screebo Parley! 15:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay I have now made some more changes in response to FRF's feedback, and my own feeling. You can reply here, maybe simpler, or here.


 * Please note that I propose User:Captain Screebo/BLPNotice Template2 as a simpler, more straightforward "filing" notice, hoping that 75-80% of people will (be able to) follow the simple wikilinking or templating instructions (as oppposed to maybe 40-50% at the moment).
 * Also, as most people seem to be ignorant of the BLP notice to be included on concerned articles' talk pages, myself included, I suggest adding this to the volunteer instructions found on the BPN/Noticeboard/Header bit, my version is here, navigate to "Volunteer instructions" and hit "Show". Honestly, this requirement seems frivolous when the concerns are minor, and there is not a good uptake (like a few per cent), and IMO, only necessary for long, or controversial, or raging debates.  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So you didn't find a way to insert la automagically? § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not for now, and i think it would give us some headaches with unsavvy wiki-userse la-ing their title. Shall I just make the changes then?  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say let it rip. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's gone live, let's see if there's more linking of articles being referred to (hopefully).  Captain Screebo Parley! 20:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good work! § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"This person doesn't deserve an article..."
We seem to be getting a lot of posts from IPs stating that this or that person doesn't deserve an article - am I right in assuming that the best response is to indicate that this really isn't an issue for this noticeboard? If so, maybe we need to make this cleared in the header, and/or have a standard reply template suggesting that the person posting either raises the matter on the article talk page, or considers proposing deletion themselves? Any comments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a real issue insomuch as it allows us, the experts/veterans/whatever, to look at potentially non-notable aricles. If you tell an IP to "take to PROD" they will more than likely have no idea what you are saying! GiantSnowman 13:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest giving a proper link to the Deletion policy, rather than saying "take to PROD", if we do go for a standard response. On the more general issue though, while it may be that an article gets a quick look, there is no guarantee - and people posting here may be expecting us to do more than is realistically likely to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but even if we direct them to the deletion policy, it still might not make sense to them. GiantSnowman 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the labyrinthine bureaucracy of wikipedia's noticeboards, that an IP has found a vaguely relevant page is often a miracle in itself. I would suggest just dealing with it as they come in (and educating the IP for the future). Passing the noticeboard buck is immensely frustrating for someone seeking help. Resolve the problem at first point of contact is one of the golden rules of customer service. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How would an IP get here? Is there a link somewhere? Hack (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They might have been directed here from an article talk page. GiantSnowman 14:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are currently 660,000 links to this page, mostly from Template:BLP, which puts the following...
 * This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
 * ...on the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I can see a few ways to handling it. Referring them to other boards and prod templates may not be the best because they may make a mess in the formats. Many of them may be drive by rivals or jealous. We could ask them to bring up the notability issue on the talk page of the article. If they don't receive a reasonable notability justification there, then we could direct them to other boards or prod. We could write a template to this effect that would save us time and filter out any drive by whiners. They would either go to the talk page, read GNG etc, and/or walk away.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that if they already made it to BLP/N then there's no problem redirecting them to N/N. And as Canoe says, more often than not it's people who basically dislike the subject(s) and are trying to find a way to sound off on that. We get these all the time on OTRS, and we typically point them to N/N and/or the deletion policy. Sometimes they figure it out, and sometimes they don't. I always try to look at the articles in question, but unless they're clear A7 material, or hoaxes or things of that nature, I tend to try and not get involved. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarify "enforcement instructions" in template?
I assume only admins can edit "Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard" template.

I think it might be helpful to new and old admins (not to mention editors repeatedly violating policy), if the language in the sentence below was a bit more explicit (something like I added in italics). Thus they all might be be encouraged to go to the link and read the actual policy, which came out of an arbitration.
 * "Administrators should review enforcement instructions regarding sanctioning editors who willfully violate policy.

Thoughts and improvements appreciated - after you read the linked policy page, of course. User:Carolmooredc  18:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone can edit it at: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Header. I see no harm in the change and if it is reverted then you can discuss it on the talk page there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Learn something every day re: formatting. User:Carolmooredc  20:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Instruction creep. Completely un-necessary and only raises more questions than it theoretically seeks to solve. Current wording is 'Administrators should review enforcement instructions'. Quite clear and unambiguous. 'Are you an admin seeking to help at BLP? Read this.' Adding additional wording only diffuses its impact. 'regarding sanctioning editors who willfully violate policy' - What if they are sanctioning editors who are not 'willfully' violating policy? Its instruction creep for the sake of it, and unless the BLP noticeboard is rife with admins sanctioning editors without reading it or without due care, completely pointless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I just started a discussion (the first) on Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Header.
 * My number one argument is:
 * I see there was more information in the past, i.e., Feb 2011: Administrators taking actions they consider to be "special enforcement" may wish to note this in the enforcement log. which was removed only here on April 27, 2013 with the unenlightening edit summary: (part of merging blp special enforcement and editing restrictions)
 * This looks like an arbitrary move by one editor which is now continued by User:Only in death's revert of my suggestion. I don't care what the language is, just as long as there is some evidence of what that link is referring to. Otherwise it just encourages the kind of BLP attacks that have disgusted many editors. User:Carolmooredc  23:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Administrator Instructions. "As a result of this ruling of the Arbitration Committee, administrators may use special enforcement guidelines in ensuring all pages on Wikipedia comply with the biographies of living persons policy. All such actions by administrators are to be logged on editing restrictions." What exactly is not clear about that? The header says 'Read this administrators'. The administrator instructions clearly say what needs to be done. The reason is was altered by NE Ent in April was as a result of the arbcom case and the need for clearer and more in-depth instruction. The header should not contain that amount of info/link. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of PRODs of older unreferenced BLPs
There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion that may be of interest. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard scope in regard to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR
Can verifiabiity, neutrality, or original research issues with material about living people be discussed here? Each has its own noticeboard, but WP:BLP says

and must adhere strictly to these three core content policies, which leads me to think that we may discuss them here when living people are the subject. Is that correct? 178.8.156.176 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. Although if there are already discussions going on at those noticeboards, the best thing to do is post a link to those discussions here, so that we have one discussion taking place at a time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Does that include discussions that have been archived? 94.222.102.10 (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A discussion on this noticeboard was just closed for not being a BLP issue when it appears to me that it is a clear violation of these policies regarding living people. Please advise. 88.75.168.80 (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

88.75.168.80 has not been able to convince anyone that there is a BLP violation.

The (properly sourced, BTW) statements


 * "One of the founders of the project, Roger Dingledine, stated that the DoD funds are less similar to being a procurement contract and are more similar to a research grant."

and
 * "Andrew Lewman, the executive director of the Tor project, stated that even though it accepts funds from the US federal government, the Tor service did not collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users."

are not by the wildest stretch of the imagination a BLP violation, and indeed, 88.75.168.80 refuses to even explain why he thinks that they are BLP violations.

Yes, we do discuss sourcing here, but only when it has at least a tenuous connection to our BLP policy. We do not discuss sourcing of claims that are not BLP violations here, nor do we bother to link to discussions about claims that are not BLP violations. 88.75.168.80 needs to either explain why he and he alone thinks that there is a BLP violation or drop the stick and take his case to WP:RSN where it belongs. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for responding here, but you so frequently say these things about me. 1) I don't think they are properly sourced to the writer of the blog or the blog itself. 2) Please tell me where I should write to convince people of BLP violations. Is it this noticeboard? 3) I think I have convinced an experienced editor that the source should not be used for information about these two people. 5) My explanations are there. Should I break them down into individual arguments posted to each relevant noticeboard?
 * Back to the on-topic question. Are violations of neutrality, verifiability, and no original research in material concerning named living people within the scope of this noticeboard? Are they instead within the scope of those individual noticeboards? The BLP policy in my original post above led me here. 94.222.101.145 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered. Asking again and again will not change the answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not trying to get a different answer, just other opinions. I got one yes, and you said yes with a caveat. My followup is how do we find out if something is covered if we can't discuss it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.62.231 (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The answer to that one is that there is no such "you can't discuss it" rule, and the actual rule doesn't say what you think it says. The BLP noticeboard is exactly where you should post if you want to try to convince people of BLP violations. There is no rule against you doing so or discussing anything related to BLP violations. Note: this does not mean that you can just assume that there is a BLP violation related to a sourcing issue and then, without every even bothering to argue your BLP violation case, start a discussion about sourcing. So feel free to attempt to make your case that your imaginary BLP violation actually exists, and if anyone tells you that you are not allowed to do that, send them to me and I will straighten them out. Note that I said the BLP noticeboard is the right place. The BLP noticeboard talk page (the page you are reading) is for discussing the noticeboard and its rules, not for discussing BLP violations, real or imagined.
 * I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect that the reason nobody else is answering you is because they do not believe that you will be willing to accept the answers. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My concerns were met with immediate calls for closure by you. That and other tactics to discourage discussion are completely unfair to the person this is really about, which isn't me.
 * I will be off the net for quite a while. 92.78.153.166 (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Is nobody watching this page?
The Koenraad Elst section was deleted (removed from public view) by Lesser Cartographies and later archived, but the issue is not resolved. I am now adding the section again. The section was hatted becasue he thought that the issue was solved - but the personal attacks of the blocked user were not the issue. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Reintroduce it at the notice board. I'll read it and respond at least. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Willem Buiter
There is a conflict going on the Willem Buiter page in his personal section. The back and forth is about an affair but seems from the stories that these are allegations for both parties involved, but I noticed on the Talk: Willem Buiter Page that the editor that has made the changes to his page is the same handle of the person that has only contributed to the other party in this dispute: Heleen Mees. Both are semi-protected but my contention is that these allegations don't even belong there in the first place until it is resolved, but the editor (Bmwz3hm) that does solely Heleen edits and questionable contributions to Willem appears to not have the Wiki guidelines as motivation. Seems more of ill intent. Thoughts or suggestions?--OnceaMetro (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Problem is mostly solved. The allegations toward the other party have encyclopedic relevance, but to put it in his strikes me as undue: if the reports are correct, he was the victim. That editor is now indef-blocked, and there's at least three admins and a couple of Dutchies keeping an eye on the articles. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at George W. Bush substance abuse controversy
George W. Bush substance abuse controversy Diff

Would some BLP expert please take a look at the above edit(s) by a brand new user? I don't know if the addition is acceptable. Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you provide some info on what you find potentially unacceptable about the edits? The fact that they come from a new user doesn't seem particularly relevant.  Do you find it to be unreliably sourced, undue weight, or just don't like it?  The objection to the edits isn't really clear at this point.
 * Also did you mean to post this on the noticeboard or talk page?
 * As quoted above: "This is the talk page for the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Issues on individual biographies of living persons should go to the noticeboard, not to this talk page. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the noticeboard itself."--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought this page was perhaps less formal than the noticeboard; I've never been here before and it looked complicated/demanding.
 * I found the edit in question after the new user had vandalized 2 pages on my watchlist. I then, of course, looked at her/his (few) contributions.  This one comes under BLP which I know very little about.  (And I, personally, don't care about the added information, one way or the other.  Just don't know if it adheres to policy or not.)  Hordaland (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are seeking more input about the edits, but don't feel this belongs on noticeboard, you could go try Requests for comment/Biographies --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow. That's one of the most ridiculous articles I've seen. I mean, it's seriously stupid. So, he got drunk one time and ran over a trash container? Whatever is notable in this article can fill up one short paragraph in his biography., what do you make of this nonsense article? Drmies (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In a word "interesting". But not valid on any BLP.  An awful lot is misleading, unsourced, and violative of WP:BLP in the first place.  It includes totally unsourced claims about "marijuana" etc., and  includes material which was campaign stuff at best. Reduced to be WP:BLP compliant. Collect (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that the excised material is non-compliant with BLP. I will check these sources later when I have some time. Cwobeel (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the marijuana claim was properly sourced (to the BBC), but the source was removed, presumably before Collect viewed the article. That said, I agree with Drmies' bottom line: the article's existence is pretty silly, and any notable/relevant/properly-sourced content should be merged into Bush's biography. MastCell Talk 16:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sourced or not (you're correct, MastCell), plenty of it is just plain bullshit. Look at the stuff I removed. I would enjoy a challenge on this edit, where someone would have to prove that someone reporting on someone else overhearing a conversation where a question was asked (of a "proper" person--whatever that means) what sex is like after 50. And so what if he smoked some weed. No, this entire article smacks of UNDUE--its very existence does. His drinking problem is well-documented but giving it a separate article? Come on. We don't have Barack Obama substance abuse history or Bill Clinton substance abuse history or John F. Kennedy substance abuse history--I may just grow a pair and boldly merge and redirect. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * An editor on that page, Lulaq, has indicated on talk page he's creating "Bill Clinton substance abuse history" and "Barack Obama substance abuse history" and has created a Category:Substance abuse histories of Presidents of the United States. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * MastCell Talk 18:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the current article for deletion and the redirect as a PROD. Mangoe (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The PROD declined, I have nominated the redirect at Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 30. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Should we redirect questions of Notability to another venue...
...or at least discourage them here? This board was created to deal with issues regarding negative unsourced material, not about notability issues. Too many discussions here end up being about simple notability questions: unreferenced articles that don't have any WP:BLP violations, but instead have issues primarily usually handled through WP:AFD or things like that. Should we make the instructions more explicit that this is not the venue to complain about notability problems? -- Jayron  32  19:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In theory, I agree that this board should focus on actual or alleged BLP violations, as they are a more serious problem than a routine "I'm not sure this guy is notable" or "this article isn't well-written" concern. But I'd want to make sure we implement any process of shunting good-faith, potential new-ish editors off to another page in a way that doesn't make the place seem even more bureaucratic than it actually is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should have a friendly standardized templated response, something to the effect of "Thanks for bringing this to our attention. If you want to help further, you can either mark the page as having a notability concern by doing thus-and-so, or mark the page for a discussion about its possible deletion by using the procedure that you'll find on thus-and-such-a-page. If you need help with either of those processes, I'd be glad to lend a hand, just drop a note on my talk page." That way, they don't feel ignored or abandoned, but we are also encouraging them not just to be involved but to take the proper steps, without saying You Did The Wrong Thing Posting Here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The friendly template sounds good, but do you realize how difficult it is to file AfD's without Twinkle, which the new-ish user is unlikely to have started using? It's horrible. I complained about it once, on the Pump I think it was, comparing our Byzantine AfD process unfavorably with the simple procedure at Commons, and all I got was "so use Twinkle like everyone else". (So now I do.) I detest this newbie-unfriendly situation altogether, but I've given up going on about it. However, as regards shunting inexperienced people off from here to AfD, that really needs to be mitigated in some way. I think Nat Gertler's template is a very good idea, but could be further improved by a really emphatic offer to pretty much do the AfD for them. Indeed, I think we should explicitly admit that the process is thorny, and apologize for that part of Wipedia being actually a bureaucracy, Brad, full of cruft and creep and dust in the corners. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC).

WP:BLPN Instructions
The instructions say:


 * Place the template on the talk page of articles that are being discussed here, and remove it when the discussion is resolved.

I've never noticed these instructions before. How many people actually do this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I occasionally do but it's not all that useful. I'm equally as likely to add a link to BLPN topic I created on the article's talk page in a regular post. --Neil N  talk to me 19:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If most editors don't use it and/or find it all that useful, should we remove the instructions? To be honest, the last thing I want is for involved editors to fill up a noticeboard with a wall of text re-arguing the same points they have at the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. the point of the noticeboard is to get uninvolved input.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This list
Does anyone actually look at these issues to make a decision, or is information posted here so people can vent their frustration? The top one was added on 4 March 2015, two weeks ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed style noticeboard
There is talk at the village pump about creating a noticeboard similar to this one for style issues. Right now, people tend to bring their style questions to WT:MoS and other talk pages:. They do not much disrupt business there, but there is some concern that people may not know where to go to get a clear answer about Wikipedia's policies regarding punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and other style issues. Proponents of the measure say that a noticeboard would be easier for people to find. Opponents of the measure argue that such a style board might facilitate forum shopping and drama. Contributions from users who have experience with Wikipedia's noticeboards would be very welcome. The proposal itself is at the Village Pump. A mockup of the style noticeboard is here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

what are retention periods of blp noticeboard archives
what are the retention periods - why is this controversial that my update was undone with no comment ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.73.149 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Forever. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC).

Archiving of BLP/N
I'm a bit confused by the archiving settings for this noticeboard - was it intended to use both ClueBot III (set to 90 hours) and MiszaBot (set to 5 days). 90 hours seems quite a short archiving length of time. -- ℕ  ℱ  19:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think at one point in the past there was an issue with one of the archiving bots not working right, which might explain the duplication. I don't know what the deal would be with the apparent difference in the length of time though. Guy1890 (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Archiving
Page is getting rather big/long, and I note that the bot hasn't archived anything since Oct 24 - are there just a lot more active posts than usual lately or is the bot not working properly? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What is required for BLPCOI consideration on BLPN?
I'd like to get a sense of what is actionable under WP:BLPCOI.

More specifically, if there are a number of facts concerning a particular BLP and editor - initiating an AfD; initiating a review of the AfD "keep" outcome by challenging the discounting of IP delete votes as likely sockpuppets; protracted argument against and removal of numerous sourced content details; suggesting in article Talk that a participating editor is the BLP subject; being banned from the BLP subject's web site forum - does this merit BLPCOI consideration on BLPN? (Or, does this question about scope itself belong on the board rather than here in Talk?) --Tsavage (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * BLPN is one possibility, particular if there is still a problem with article content. But another option is ANI -- if it's more a matter of behaviour.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This seems to be where BLPCOI rules describe the situation I'm considering:
 * an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest.
 * My sense in reading that in context, and reading WP:COI, is that application favors formal dispute relationships, such as in a court case, or business to business. Does this also apply where there is personal animosity between an editor and a BLP subject (demonstrable, for example, by off-wiki forum exchanges), and, while the edits and edit challenges are not themselves defamatory or even entirely unreasonable, the pattern of continually opposing content inclusion suggests that the editor is attempting to minimize the article as a way to punish the subject?


 * Please take this at face value as a simple hypothetical question: I'd like to get a clearer idea of how things work before taking further steps, rather than diving in somewhere and possibly wasting everyone's time. --Tsavage (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No comments? --Tsavage (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This seems to be about opponents of the article subject. (The usual COI problem is self-promotion.) People, especially notable ones, have opponents for lots of reasons - political, commercial, religious, scholarly, etc. Sometimes it's just obsession.  These things often look more like content disputes than COI problems. WP:NPOV and WP:NOTHERE apply, of course.  Sometimes mediation can be helpful.  If not, as Nomoskedasticity points out, WP:AN/I is there for editor behavior problems. They can do topic bans.  Speaking as someone who works issues from WP:COIN, this hasn't usually been a COI problem. We rarely see paid editors making negative edits to the articles of competitors, for example.  We do see political campaigns where one side is editing the articles about the other, but that's a political/content dispute more than a COI issue. In general, I'd suggest waiting until a pattern of edit warring appears, then sending the problem to AN/I, with appropriate diffs.  John Nagle (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Clear and very helpful. Thanks! --Tsavage (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship
Many participants here often create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, and obviously must decide if content complies with BLP policy. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Handling the Google Knowledge Graph requests
We've had a number of people come to this noticeboard lately because Google is putting misinformation or private information in their Knowledge Graph display, which included a link to Wikipedia so that people think the info comes from here, when (at least in the cases scene lately), it does not. Since these people are not regulars in the Wikipedia editing space, they may not know to come back here to see the response. Should we consider adding something about Knowledge Graph to the submissions page? The upside is that it might both save the complainant time in dealing with the matter and save us from the time of dealing with the misdirected complaint; the downside is that it would just be that much more noise during submission, and each thing you add to the submission process makes it easier to overlook other thing. I don't have a hard stance on this, but thought that it might be worth considering. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship
Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Bot Task
Would patrollers of this page be interested in revival of Bots/Requests for approval/Mr.Z-bot 6? Pinging Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for offering, but I am not really a patroller of this page, I am just a potato who strongly dislikes nationalism so I figured I would close those 2 discussions to prevent others from wasting even more time on that BS. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Archives
Are old discussions for the noticeboard automatically archived and added to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive toc? There are currently only links up to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive244, but discussions have been archived since then with the most recent being Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive250. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The new section I posted on 3 February 2017 already archived without response....
...While others posted earlier still remain. Kindly explain to me how this Noticeboard works and how I might proceed with the BLP problem I posted. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If no one responds, its either because no one found the complaint worthwhile, or they looked into it and still didnt find anything wrong. After no one has responded for awhile sections are automatically archived (This is a busy board, so its archving for inactivity is fairly quick). Its unlikely no one saw it, but I will go have a look at the complaint for you now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So assuming this is related to Elliot Sperling this isnt really a BLP issue - which is more concerned with false/badly sourced negative information. While any unsourced information in a BLP *can* be removed, this is generally only done if the info is problematic or contentious in some manner. Biographic/eulogistic material would not necessarily be a BLP issue, but it might be an UNDUE/NPOV (or possibly a copyvio if it looks like it was directly pasted from an obituary) From looking at the material added this does not seem overly problematic at a quick glance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for the information. I appreciate the distinctions you make. My issue is more along the lines of how to approach a recently active SPA editor about writing in conformance with WP's objectives. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally you first approach the editor on their talkpage outlining your concerns (that some sections are unreferenced, that it appears overly puffy in parts) and go from there. If you dont get any joy, the NPOV noticeboard might be a better venue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Alexandre Mars
Hello,

I am editing the page of Alexandre Mars based on some recent publications that came out which give me credible sources to use. Could I get some help in adding this content to the page since I can only make suggestions on the talk page? Thank you Jennepicfoundation (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Jennepicfoundation Sure. I've opened a new section for you to bring your requests and sources for possible inclusions here: Requested Content & Sources on the subject's Talk Page. I'll be happy to help out if I can. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

When living persons are suspected of colluding with Russia it violates BLP to omit that there's no evidence
I disagree with this closure of a discussion at BLPN. User:Sphilbrick says this is not a BLP issue because others say so, but that is hardly a reasonable rationale. The article in question says multiple living people are being investigated for collusion with Russia in criminal acts. And we are suppressing information that no evidence has been found. Any NPOV violation at a BLP is a BLP violation, and this surely qualifies. Investigations are usually based on some initial evidence suggesting guilt, in order to find more evidence, and build a case beyond reasonable doubt. Here, Feinstein says there is not any evidence at all, after ten months of investigation. Suppressing that fact violates BLP, NPOV, and I'll throw in WP:PRESERVE as well.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with judgement by admin and explanation at . Sagecandor (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the people saying it's not a BLP issue were also in favor of deleting Feinstein from the article. That's no coincidence in my opinion.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * was a new 3rd party admin respondent to the issue. I trust and defer to their judgment. Sagecandor (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I had hoped it was obvious that I didn't simply close " because others say so" but becasue others said so, and after considering their argument, I judged it to be persuasive. ( As an important aside, Feinstein didn't say there was no evidence. This a fair bit of distance between a declaration that there is no evidence, and a single senator, privy to a subset of the investigative results, noting that she hasn't seen evidence as of that time If you think the omission of her statement is a violation of NPOV, we have an NPOV noticeboard. My goal wasn't to shut down discussion — indeed I think it is worthy of discussion, but we have different forums for a reason.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that you think it's appropriate for the NPOV Noticeboard. Judging from the second sentence of WP:BLP, I thought that any issue suitable for the NPOV Noticeboard is also suitable for this notice board if it involves neutral point of view regarding a living person.  I'm surprised to learn otherwise.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this was not a WP:BLP violation. Multiple WP:WELLKNOWN living people are being investigated for possible collusion with Russia. That is a widely-reported, indisputable fact. On the other hand, your claim that "we are suppressing information that no evidence has been found." is utterly false. Feinstein did not say that evidence has not been found; she said she didn't have evidence, and then two weeks later that she did not see evidence, while in the same breath acknowledging that it is the criminal investigation that would reveal evidence, if any exists. This is all meticulously documented on the article talk page. This smacks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING.- MrX 20:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Seems to be (at least) the 3rd venue where the original poster didn't get the result they wanted, and tried somewhere else, over and over again. Sagecandor (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The closing admin has explained above what he thinks the proper forums are, including the NPOV Noticeboard, so I may go there unless the closing admin changes his mind. Coming to BLPN from an article talk page is designed to get broader feedback.  I have not raised this issue on multiple noticeboards, only one noticeboard.  I have not raised it with multiple administrators, only one administrator.  So ease up on the attacks, please.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Called out for WP:FORUMSHOPPING, immediately proposes to go to yet another Noticeboard. LOL. Sagecandor (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You know that I didn't propose it, the closing admin did.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One reason for going to a noticeboard is when a discussion on an article talk page is only attracting a limited number of participants. A noticeboard will involve editors who have particular interest in an aspect of editing (such as neutrality) who might otherwise not have seen the talk page discussion and there may be need for such expertise. Given that most articles in Wikipedia a low traffic it is not unusual that going to a noticeboard make sense in a lot of situations. The particular article in this situation has 152 page watchers and a number of participants in the talk page discussion so it is not immediately obvious that broader participation is necessary. If it is necessary, it makes more sense to me to go to NPOV than BLP but I am not urging the opening of yet another discussion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't pursue noticeboard discussion for the time being, but wouldn't rule it out. People at noticeboards tend to have more objectivity and more inclination to give their opinions than pagewatchers.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please drop the stick. The article already contains past comments from two intelligence officials saying that at a particular point of time, they had seen no evidence of collusion. There is nothing in the article where anyone claims there IS any evidence of collusion. So your insistence that it is vital to add a third voice, a month or two later than the other two, also saying that she hasn't seen any evidence as of a certain date, is baffling. Are we supposed to keep adding "nothing yet" comments every few weeks? It's an ongoing investigation. It could take a year or more. When evidence DOES get reported by reliable sources, we will say so. Until then, "nothing yet" is the default condition. No WP policy requires us to keep hammering on it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I say "I won't pursue noticeboard discussion for the time being" and then you say "drop the stick". I really don't have any desire to continue such discussion with you here at this talk page, I don't think that's what it's for, and I don't think your characterization of me (as carrying a stick) is any more accurate than your past characterizations of me.  Cheers.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with the header - and as such with the position of User:Anythingyouwant - As an onlooker, there is no real solid evidence of any special interference in the election, all concerned foreign govs are normally involved in small ways. The issue carried over to wikipedia users is the democtratic attempt to impeach trump at any cost and for any reason, the evidence is not arriving at any point in the near future, there is no evidence at all is the truth right now. Demonize russia and then say trump spoke to russia, and you have two demons, as an outsider and a supporter of wikipedia npov content all these edits  are sad to see. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

When Wiki becomes a source
Not really sure where to post this. I'm sure it's happened before, though, and I'm sure it's been discussed before. I'm happy to be pointed in the direction of a previous discussion, or in the direction of a different venue if there is a more appropriate one. I'm not talking specifics here, as I'm not reporting anything, but I will say the BLP in question is a footballer.

A user adds text to a BLP, sourcing it only to twitter (not the subject's twitter) and includes OR. A handful of people revert, but eventually it sticks for a while. At some point a local newspaper hastily pens a multi-point "Did you know?" article about the BLP and (with 95% certainty) lifts the text from en-wiki for part of their article. At about the same time the user is challenged over their OR/twitter-sourced text and updates it to be sourced to the local newspaper.

So the outcome is that the user's OR is now sourced material and meets guidelines for inclusion. Surely that's not the right outcome, but how do we show it to be wrong within guidelines? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:CIRCULAR ("do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.") - if there is a credible indication the source has used wikipedia as a reference, its not useable. Its usually easy to spot because the publication often copies wikipedia with minimal paraphrasing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Alt-left
Is the following from the article mentioned above a BLP concern? Should it have multiple strong references even if this is a different use;

--Mark Miller (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Did the source say it was "Unrelated to Donald Trump's use of the word"? If the source does not verify the claim then that part failed verification. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a good point but such details have been brought up before and seem to be ignored. This article is becoming a coatrack of BLP issues in my opinion. Further input on the talk page is needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Where is the template supposed to go when subjects are under discussion?
Is the template BLP noticeboard supposed to be posted to the top of the talk page when there is an ongoing discussion, or at the bottom? Above the discussion but below the Wikiproject and talk page header? I posted it at the bottom in a new section for Talk:Felix Sater, but then thought it looked weird, so moved it to the top. It would be helpful is the location of where it should go is included on the main page here. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Aeroaiei
Cristian Aeroaiei Romania Bucharest 31.10.1989 Aeroaiei (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * what is the BLP issue you are here to address? Tornado chaser (talk)

Vanishing posts?
Not that it's a big concern to me, but this does seem mysterious. Apparently between this edit and this one, a few posts seemed to have disappeared without being either deleted or archived. I've never seen this happen before, so I was just curious if anyone knows what happened. Zaereth (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The layout and subtitles were improved after a large misformatted post (now all under Frankopan). I'm not sure if this is what gave the impression of posts being lost, but it's possible (some anchor links in the watchlist and history no longer work).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

BLP controversy pages
Do you have any historical examples of how pages in the format of "[BLP Name] controversies" are dealt with. I recently sent Michael Yeung Ming-cheung controversies as a POV fork of a BLP and it was pointed out to Pat Robertson controversies also existed. I'm pretty skeptical of this practice as it seems to allow for laundry list POV forks that go largely unnoticed or reviewed by anyone. I was just curious if others had thoughts and if there were historical examples of how we applied the BLP policy in these cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I my be in the minority, but I find such pages to be about as worthwhile as "Celebrity drunk-driving allegations" or the like. Wikipedia should stick to being a source of facts, not allegations, controversies, unproven charges, claims of anything where we seem to forget "self-identification" as best source for many things, and so on.   Wikipedia has far too many now, and should blue pencil a great many of them. Collect (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have such pages, period, unless it is a larger controversy, and we shouldn't be seeking to try to include every little accusation leveled against a person. There are notable cases where what someone did was seen as controversial and made a lot of noise in the news and thus should be covered, but we shouldn't trying to be where everyone's dirty laundry is hung out, per BLP. If there is a singular controversy that is significant as to require a separate page, then there probably is a more narrower title that can be made (eg Lewinsky scandal). --M ASEM (t) 15:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Distinguishing the Robertson and Bishop Yeung cases is not difficult. Where a figure is specifically known for creating and causing controversy, and Pat Robertson certainly counts, then an article on such is logical and follows the sources. There are multiple controversies surrounding certain individuals because they intentionally use controversies to affect societal change or publicity or other goals.  Leaving laundry lists of such well-documented controversies in the main articles overwhelms them.  The number of people that this applies to, however, is exceedingly small.  Religious figures are likely prone to generating such "[BLP Name] controversies" articles simply because they are required by their calling to take position on moral and ethical matters but that is not, I would say, in itself sufficient cause for retaining these.  Entire books have been written about Robertson's controversial positions while Bishop Yeung does not appear to have anything approaching a similar profile.  A "[BLP Name] controversies" article" on Robertson is therefore supported by WP:CCPOL while a corresponding article on Bishop Yeung is not. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which a lot of this comes down to how too many editors in BLP areas (particularly anyone political) disregard WP:RECENTISM, and feel they must insert a controversy about a person just because it was reporter. Pat Robertson's page is a good example where the controversies have persistent and been the focus of study, making sense for a separate article, but we've allowed enough time for that. For Yeung, this all reeks of too much recentism that we have to include, which per BLP and NOT#NEWS, we shouldn't be rushing to do so. We're not a political tabloid, but too many editors see it that way. --M ASEM (t) 16:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Even the Robertson page I am unsure of: do we really need a separate article that documents all the controversy of a US political and religious figure that is distinct from his article? I think most of the sections could be reduced to a sentence or two and incorporated into the actual biography if needed: that seems to be much more in line with the spirit behind the BLP policy and more practical: his article is going to have a lot more oversight, but the controversy page is most likely going to be free to grow as any editor sees fit, which is not ideal when working with living people. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not speaking to these articles in specific but, personally, I have a problem with controversy pages and sections in general. Partly because they just become dumping grounds for whatever POV a person wants to add. I think controversial things should be worked into the timeline of an article and not walled off in a section of their own. This in itself often lends undue weight to controversial situations which wouldn't exist if the information was properly placed. The biggest problem I have is that the term "controversy" is almost always misused in these cases, because these articles or sections rarely talk about the controversy (in many cases there was no controversy at all) but rather just list negative things associated with the subject.


 * The definition of "controversy" is "a lot of public debate over a topic or issue." A lawsuit, a fight, an argument, sexual misconduct, committing a crime; these things in and of themselves are not controversies. A section or article labeled "controversies" should be about the large public debate. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Rhodes Scholar
Does receiving a Rhodes Scholarship confer notability, or does the subject of a BLP have to be notable for something else? YoPienso (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A Rhodes Scholarship does not confer notability. The subject will have to meet the usual notability requirements for biographies. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No. And note that for most people who have received one, it is the first time they have been mentioned in news reporting.  Many Rhodes scholars have of course achieve notability during their careers.  TFD (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Rhodes Scholarships are not rare at all (over 8,000 worldwide since inception). IMHO, the fact that a person has such an award is not something notable per se, but a number of notable persons have had the scholarship. The same, however, is true of Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) - many notables in the US have been Eagle Scouts, but the award is not in and of itself "notability."  Collect (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted above, simply being a Rhodes Scholar is not notable in and of itself. However, we should include if someone was a Rhodes Scholar if they already have a page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all! YoPienso (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Posting on rev-del IRC
This is likely a totally silly question (I am not using IRC regularly, bear with me): after I post a request on this IRC channel, should I stay logged in until someone responds? Or will my request stay visible in the message queue, even after I have logged out without a response? My actual request on IRC has already been handled btw - thanks for any advice. GermanJoe (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey GermanJoe. Normally I just go to the main English channel (#wikpedia-en) and ping an individual admin, or ping them all by using "!admin", especially if I'm in a hurry. There's almost always someone online willing to take care of it. Your report on IRC will normally be visible to everyone who's in the room at the time you posted it, but it won't necessarily be visible for people who join afterward. So I normally stick around until I know it's been handled.  G M G  talk  17:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Recently Deceased
In some cases BLP applies to recently deceased. Does this mean at some point after death BLP no longer applies, if so, how much must pass to no longer be considered recent? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside - WP:BDPGalobtter (pingó mió) 17:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That Gaius Julius Caesar was a power-hungry, Gaul killing ingrate. Let him sue me. Dumuzid (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on drug name
Requests for comment are sought at on how to state the name of a drug mentioned in court documents about a living person. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)