Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
Arrow icon.svg Click here to post a question to the Biographies of living persons noticeboard

BLP noticeboard scope in regard to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR[edit]

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 Does that include discussions that have been archived? 94.222.102.10 (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)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.[1]

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)

Willem Buiter[edit]

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)

Is nobody watching this page?[edit]

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)

Please take a look at George W. Bush substance abuse controversy[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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. Collect, 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)
Facepalm3.svg Facepalm 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 30#George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Should we redirect questions of Notability to another venue...[edit]

...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? --Jayron32 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)