Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

unreferenced BLP bot

There was consensus here a bit ago about a bot notifying users who's articles were unreferenced BLP's. I wrote the bot, and before I go for approval, Id like some final input. See the discussion here Thanks. Tim1357 (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:LaraBot was created several months ago and has been doing this. Lara ☁ 15:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This bot creates a full list of articles, it appears LauraBot only does newly created ones. Tim1357 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See my posting on your talk page, Tim. Your bot seems to have a problem in correctly identifying the original authors of some articles. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have raised a complaint about User:DASHBot over at Wikipedia talk:Bots. —Lowellian (reply) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Internet memes

The decision on which internet memes are given their own pages and which are not seems to be totally arbitrary. Why does the Star Wars kid's meme get a page while Afro Ninja and Elizabeth Lambert do not? The answer to that question prompts another: Why are any of these memes worthy of their own pages? It seems to me that the people who care enough to fight articles deletion processes tend to be relatively likeminded people who make decisions on what they believe is cool/funny/notable rather than what is objectively notable, and they are unable to take of their lens and objectively examine whether these pages meet the notability guidelines. Virtually all memes are NOT notable to people outside the socioeconomic/cultural sphere that Wikipedia's user-administrators are part of (a sphere that represents only a fraction of the English-speaking population of the world). They do not receive significant coverage (which is the hallmark of WP:NOTABILITY) outside of the self-driven blogs and websites that serve the relatively small internet-obsessed population from which most Wikipedia user-administrators are drawn. A smell-test for me is this: If Person X died tomorrow, would it receive significant coverage? I can't think of a single internet meme for which the answer would be "yes." So the BLPs of people who are really just known for internet memes likely never meet the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. They should be compiled on pages like List of Internet phenomena and viral videos, but that should be it.

If Wikipedia has aspirations to be taken seriously as a source of information in the future, it cannot continue to allow itself to fall into the trap of allowing the cultural biases of a majority of its administrators to allow pages to be created for memes that receive lots of attention among the administrators and their friends, but are little noted by the rest of the universe.

Apologies if I rambled a bit, but you get the idea. Niremetal (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your question should be addressed to Wikipedia talk:Notability. This page is for discussing changes to our BLP policy. The BLP policy is specific to the special ethical and legal responsibilities associated with articles about living persons. It's not clear to me how internet memes add any dimensions to such issues that are not already covered in the policy, e.g. WP:BLP1E.--agr (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is that WP:BLP1E is being ignored. Pages are posted of people notable only for a single internet meme surrounding them, but the rules relating to BLPs are circumvented because the page is ostensibly of "the phenomenon" rather than "the person." The page on the Star Wars Kid is the best example. Niremetal (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Questionable/ unproven deaths

What do we do when a person has schroedingered and we're not sure he's alive or dead? Is it appropriate to apply BLP? 68.83.179.156 (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes, because we should err on the side of caution. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions exist. I think a good faith assumption that anybody over 120? years from their date of birth is dead wouldn't land you in any trouble. I think we actually had a minor discussion about this awhile back. Other than that, for ambiguous cases, once we can agree they're probably dead by examination of sources and some analysis, I think that works too - like, say, Amelia Earhart. Ray^Talk 14:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

New page

As part of ongoing community discussion concerning issues surrounding interpretation of our BLP policy, I have posted Wikipedia:BLP examples for discussion. This page contains five examples of situations in which application of the BLP policy could lead to disagreements among good-faith editors. The examples, based on specific articles but intended to be discussed more abstractly, are designed for discussion either on-wiki and also as an aid to discussion of the problem at meet-ups where there is a session scheduled on BLP issues (including in New York this Sunday, January 24). Input is welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles

I'm slowly going through the list of unreferenced BLPs from January 2007 and adding reliable sources when available. I have been able to find at least one or two references for most of the articles and the few remaining are prodded (if uncontroversial) or send to AfD (if there is a chance the article could be kept or improved if there were more eyes on it). There are a couple of articles that I've come across that I'm really not sure what to do with - the person appears to be notable, but I can found zero reliable sources to verify the notability and information contained within the article. This may due to a language barrier, or in cases where the individual's profession is not commonly covered in depth by what we consider reliable independent sources. In such cases is it best to just leave the article unsourced and move on? Examples include Giovanni Adamo, Andrea Bruschi, and Michael Castellana. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You could try adding a expert required template with the specific topic or nationality to attract attention, the issue imo with uncited bios is that they may either be fake or derogatory, {{Andrea Bruschi]] for example has a link to his webpage and an imbd info page so although a citation is not jumping out we can see the article is more or less correct so do what you can and if there is no harmful content then move on. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rob, that's pretty much what I've been doing (I'm the one who added the "official website" to the Bruschi page). Essentially if there is no contentious or really questionable assertions made I've just been leaving them be if my search for references gives the impression of truth and notability, despite the lack if independent coverage and sources. I just wanted to make sure that I'm in step with other BLP project members as to how to proceed. If nothing else at least the articles have been edited for POV and updated, and are now watchlisted. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I totally agree, I had a bit more of a look at them and prodded Michael Castellana and Giovanni Adamo as not notable, it you have a good look and find nothing then I wouldn't be worried about prodding them, that gives anyone else and the creator a week to establish notability, if not then the article wasn't of much importance or value and it can always be recreated in the future. I found a citation for Andrea Bruschi and have added that, I usually add the search template on the talkpage as you will see here and if I can't find anything then how notable are they? Feel free to ask me to join in with anything you need another pair of eyes as we seem to be working on along similar lines. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, policy proposal regarding unsourced BLPs

• Proposal to prohibit the removal of Proposed deletion tags from unsourced Biographies of living persons and prod all of them in groups over the next 2.5 months.

Please add your input at the proposal page. -- Banjeboi 09:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

How to proceed?

I've come across two articles about the same individual Chris Clark (editor) and Chris Clark (sports reporter). Normally the articles could be merged, however I'm having a hard time determing which article to "keep" and which to redirect, as well as what content should be merged. The crux of my dilemna is that both articles were created in 2007 and have never been sourced. They're both poorly written and don't appear to be very neutral and have only been edited by a handful of editors over the past three years. Any ideas on the best way forward? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest redirecting the poorer article to the better one, IMHO Chris Clark (sports reporter) is the better as it has more prose. I quick glance through the article does not show any obvious things in (editor) that are not in (sports reporter), and one is not an obvious copy of the other. Martin451 (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but Clark is listed on the WTOC-TV article but not the other station. You could check the newer station's web site. The claim is he won an emmy so he's notable enough. It should be possible to find a source for that. Do the best you can.--agr (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the advice, however it's apparently moot now as an admin has deleted the (editor) article. I'll just work on cleaning up the remaining article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"unsourced or poorly sourced CONTENTIOUS material"

The "contentious" wording was first inserted in May 2006, using the "negative" word instead[1], it was then changed to "controversial" in October 2006[2], and it was changed to "contentious" in February 2007[3].

This is a long standing wording, it affects a lot of material, it has been disputed, and it should be discussed in the talk page instead of edit warring over it like you are doing right now because it doesn't allow you to mass-delete unsourced BLPs that aren't composed exclusively by contentious material. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Do I need to go to WP:RFPP for this silliness to stop? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:POLICY#Content_changes explains very well why this is bad. Someone makes a change to support his position in an active dispute that is still under discussion here. The community discussion has been going on only for 20 hours, and [ANI thread that started the problem] started only 23 hours ago and it's still active. The change to the policy has been disputed and reverted by two editors.

Once again: this change is disputed, take it to the talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there appears to be an edit war in progress I have full protected the page until the matter is sorted out here on talk. No doubt I protected the Wrong Version. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and was considering doing this myself. Edit summaries are no substitute for constructive discussion. Rodhullandemu 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You did protect the Wrong Version, and I've reverted back to the version of policy stable for nearly three years. I don't believe we should protect the Wrong Version of policy when policy was changed without prior consensus to advance position in a current dispute. Rd232 ^talk 02:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

no doubt protecting the "wrong version" helps advance your position, but that's par for the course in this area. R. Baley (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding WP:PREFER, I don't see Rd232 having a horse in this race, and WP:BURDEN applies to impose the duty on those seeking to change the wording of an embedded policy to bring it here for discussion first. Anyone thinking that such changes would sneak under the wire must be naive in the extreme. Rodhullandemu 02:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support the new wording. Since the original wording was added in 2006, time and time again we have been reminded that Wikipedia's system for protecting BLPs is broken. It's time to find some responsibility and get it fixed. Cla68 (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Recent case in point. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's both controversial and contentious, although not necessarily negative. That's no reason to support either wording. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the change. No reason has been given except to support the deletion spree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Arthur Rubin. Pcap ping 04:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the change. A full RfC, with CENT input, is really in order here if people want to make the policy support the removal of ANY unsourced BLP info. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's not for us to decide if content is contentious or not. We're too removed from the person in question to be reliable enough to make that decision. Information that looks innocuous to us could cause the subject tremendous trouble. So, any unsourced material should be eligible for removal from BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Cla68 that we as editors are poorly qualified to determine what might be harmful to the article subject, or their employer, family etc. Going further, we should also have some sense of pride that we have done all we can to ensure the accuracy of a biography. As it stands, it often looks like we haven't bothered at all, which is all to often the reality also. Kevin (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I actually think Cla68 makes a reasonable argument which is worth discussing further. But obviously any resulting policy change of such substance has to go through a substantive process, as per Jclemens. Changing policy without prior discussion (never mind consensus) in the middle of a heated dispute in order to advance a position within it? Forgive and forget, perhaps, in the highly heated circumstances. Rd232 ^talk

• I think it works better to try to make the change to the policy first and see if it sticks, if it doesn't, discussion is, of course, fine. By the way, I understand that ArbCom doesn't make policy, but their recent motion appears to support changing the wording to make it less subjective. Cla68 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, in general, WP:BRD can be applied to policy - but that does not mean that in these circumstances you and those supporting your edits did the right thing (not least because the D got rather lost). Rd232 ^talk 08:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Restore long-standing wording and make a RfC to show support for this very important change. I note that the new wording has been used to mass-delete and mass-prod articles that were perfectly fine, articles on persons that passed notability guidelines with no problem, articles whose subject had tons of sources in google news that spoke only about them, etc. An admin has pointed out that some of the deleted articles were libelous, but that was already covered by the "contentious" wording.

Notice that BLP removals are exempt from 3RR, so this new wording allows to stub or delete any BLP, even it's about a very notable person, makes claims to notability, links to articles about his works, etc. BLP was created to protect people from libel and negative statements in their articles, not to mass-remove valid encyclopedic information about notable public figures just because the remover didn't do any legwork to find any source. What happened to WP:BURDEN? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• The new wording is already being used to remove any unsourced content on BLPs, even if it's not contentious [4]. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Support change of wording. All unsourced/unverifiable information on living people in an encyclopedia is unnaceptable. In fact, I find it "contentious." Simplify the wording to reflect the best interests of the encyclopedia -- all unsourced info to go, post haste. If an article is entirely unsourced, it goes.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose change of wording - Just another pointy attempt of explicitly ignoring community consensus to endorse previous disregard of community consensus (and policy).--Cyclopia^talk 14:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose change of wording without further community input.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The change was not discussed before and after reverting should have been discussed here per WP:BRD. It's shameful that experienced editors, who really knew better, edit-warred over it. It's also wrong, that Lar (talk · contribs) protected the page, since he made it very clear that they have a certain opinion in the current discussion and thus he should not have used his tools on anything that is about this discussion per WP:INVOLVED. On a side note, per WP:PREFER "administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war", which should have been done in this case in order to avoid making it look as if the protecting admin did so to have the page in their preferred version. Regards SoWhy 01:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately, removing all unsourced information from BLPs (even non-contentious) would probably mean removing well over half of the information about living people on Wikipedia. We are just not at a situation where we can make such high demands. Also, protecting the "wrong version" here gives a false impression about current policy. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternate wording

Part of the problem is a slight lack of clarity. I suggest a better version of the proposed revision would be:

Any material relating to a living person, appearing in any Wikipedia article, must be fully and reliably sourced. Unsourced or poorly sourced material must be removed immediately and may not be re-added until reliably sourced.

This has the merit about being clear about how Draconian it is. You want that? So argue for it. Possible variation: specify that the reliable source needs to be given inline and in a precise form (i.e. a link or ref in external links section, or general book ref in Sources section, etc, is not enough). Could also specify use of WebCite for URLs where possible, so that deadlinks don't defeat verification in five years.

Rd232 ^talk 13:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So, do we make a RfC on restoring the long-standing wording? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop immediately.

The next person who edits this through full protection should turn their mop in with it. This has gone FAR enough, and the request is being handled at ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Woops didn't see this message before I reverted. ArbCom is free to revert what I did. --— Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It bears repeating that everyone involved in contested or contentious editing should read to the end of the associated talk page before editing. I'd recommend you revert yourself, rather than expecting ArbCom to look favorably upon your admission that you read this after the fact, but let your edit stand... Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh someone else reverted, no problems. However I do remember somewhere the idea of protections not taking one side over the other... — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Meatpuppet Jack Merridew has openly admitted he participates in a form of meatpuppetry, giving Lar's wife a barnstar for acknowledging this when she was defending him calling another editor a WP:DICK. As one of Jack Merridew's self described "friends" it is no surprise that Lar protected on Jack Merridew's edit. Caveat, this is all from memory, so some of the facts maybe slightly different, edit diffs if needed

It doesn't take much of a leap to see how Coffee and Arthur Rubin, two editors who support the same views on content, end up with the version they wanted. Way to game the system gentlemen. Ikip 08:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fozzie, you should know that the Rd guy was the first to edit through protection, as he apparently didn't care for the version that was protected. UnitAnode 07:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you meant to link to this. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted, then reconsidered, adding a {{verification failed}} tag, rather than the more obvious {{disputed guideline}} (or equivalent) tag. If you wish to revert back to the pre-war version, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

However, mt:wrong version does not apply to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or sometimes even essays. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And there are excellent reasons why it should not. The present case is so clear cut it should be Exhibit A. Rd232 ^talk 08:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin and Coffee, you two are supposed to be examples. Not only are you supporting disruptive edits, you two are clearly gaming the system. Coffee, I hope SirFozzie moves to take away your administrative privileges immediately. I will push for this in the arbcom. Hopefully you are administrator number five who I help get desysoped. Ikip 07:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's one reason why policies should be exempt from the Wrong Version when there is an unambiguously identifiable longstanding version of the relevant part. We've now ended up with a policy which is certainly important and which some say trumps everything else which contradicts itself. The lead contradicts the relevant body section ("Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material"). And of course in the lead the policy nominally says one thing, which has no demonstrated consensus, but has a "verify" tag. This messiness matters in a way it does not with articles, because we can't just suspend the existence of a policy whilst it is under dispute - it is still going to be applied, perhaps by people uninvolved in or uninterested in the dispute; so we're left with a sort of limbo. For purposes of stability and sanity, we should stick to a stable version where it is obvious what that is, while discussion is ongoing. Perhaps we could amend WP:POLICY, because this is hardly the first or last time this is going to happen. Rd232 ^talk 13:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Can we please archive the above discussions (and the various reverts) as an essential reading for all the fresh editors at Wikipedia who want to become administrators in the future? :):):) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs

Because one of the main criticisms of all suggested systems for the deletion of unsourced BLPs was that people are misusing the system to achieve their goals, I have created a proposal for a completely new (although obviously similar) system: Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs. ProD stays like it is, and all discussion, refinements, opposition, ... can be centered at the new location. No confusion between regular Prod and the new system will be possible anymore, I hope. Again, this is a proposal, not a new policy. I'll post notifications of it in a few central locations, feel free to add it to all relevant pages I may have forgotten. Fram (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Implicit sources

I was recently looking through a spree of wholesale content removal by JBsupreme (talk · contribs) earlier this morning, and something occurs to me.

If Arbcom are serious about effectively removing the word "contentious" from BLP without any RfC or assessment of community consensus, we should consider what constitutes "implicit sourcing".

Many of the articles JBsupreme touched were bios of authors, actors or performers including statements about their work -- X was in films A, B and C; Y wrote books D and E; Z performed with P and Q on F and G; Y wrote principally in Portuguese; Y's book D was set in the north-west of Brazil.

All of these statements are directly verifiable from the works identified, - ie sourced in as much as anything else is made verifiable by a reference to an offline source which can or could be checked.

If people are proposing to be this aggressive about removing anything and everything from a BLP unless every phrase has an explicit ^[ref], and the word "contentious" really is to be struck from policy, do we now have to write down black-and-white in policy that implicit sourcing can exist, and actually really is okay?

And if all the content in an article is of this kind, does it deserve an "unreferenced" tag? (Or if it has a relevant IMDB link, is that enough?).

I have to say I was shaken by the sheer amount of useful reader-informative content being quite uncaringly thrown on the flames. Jheald (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is some logic to what Jheald says, and I certainly agree that JBsupreme's editing has at times been questionable. Nevertheless, there are serious problems with the view Jheald has expressed. For one thing, if no sources are cited in an article then yes it does deserve an "unreferenced" tag, no matter whether all the information is of the sort that can be regarded as "implicitly sourced", because references are needed not only to verify the factual accuracy of the statements in the article, but also to establish notability. Notability can never be established from the subject's own writings. Then, even if we leave aside the debate about whether the word "contentious" should be included in WP:BLP, there are at least two problems with Jheald's interpetation of the idea that only "contentious" material needs to be removed. Firstly there is the question "who decides what is contentious": there is a case for saying that material to which anyone objects in good faith is ipso facto contentious. Secondly there is the fact that WP:BLP is not the only reason for removing unsourced material: for example even uncontentious material should be removed if it seems to be un-notable, and sources are the means for establishing notability.

The answer to "if it has a relevant IMDB link, is that enough?" is unambiguously "no", for the same reason as the answer to "if it is stated in another Wikipedia article, is that enough?" is no, namely that imdb is not a reliable source, as anyone can register and submit information.

Please note that none of this is a comment on JBsupreme's editing: I have looked at a small sample of that editing, and found much that was fine, and some that was open to question, but I have not done a thorough check of JBsupreme's recent edits, and do not wish to make a judgement. However, even if we take as black a view of JBsupreme' edits as Jheald does, is is a large leap from there to the conclusions that Jheald draws about allowing unsourced material to stand. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jheald, third party sources are always welcomed but the work itself can be used as an implict source when no other source exists. JBsupreme's edits seem heavy handed and inviolation of the spirit of the law.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people --MZMcBride (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted unsourced BLPs

I wanted to start an unsourced BLP drive to actually source these articles, but now that ArbCom has ruled that all 50,000 unsourced BLPs can be mass deleted this seems a bit moot, as it is much quicker to hit the delete button than find sources - any effort at sourcing would be quickly overtaken by the deletions. Without knowing who is doing mass deletion there's no way to record which unsourced BLPs have been deleted, unless I trawl the whole deletion log. Can we record the list of titles somewhere so those of us who wish to find sources and retain some of this content can work on them? Fences&Windows 17:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly second this request. I've been working on adding sources from the back of the Unsourced BLP log (I'm just starting on D here) and it's rare that I haven't been able to find several reliable sources for each individual. Those that I can't source, or that do not meet notability criteria, have been prodded or sent to AfD. I'm more than willing to keep plugging away at sourcing of old articles because there is indeed some good material already in place, such as with Tanya Chua, Gianrico Carofiglio, and Terence Cole, which were all tagged as unreferenced until I sourced them this week. Perhaps there can be an opt-in group to somehow access the deleted articles or have batches of them userfied? If there are many people willing to really dig in and seperate the wheat from the chaff perhaps we should explore that option? As with the recent clean-up of the New Page Patrol backlog, I think that if a concerted effort was made by a group of willing participants, we could clear this backlog and then concentrate on maintaining the quality of BLPs. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we change WP:BLPDEL please?

Given that the arbcom ruling has commended the administrators who proceeded on the deletion drive, can we please change the relevant sections in the article to reflect that poorly sourced/unsourced BLPs should be deleted? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

1. The motion hasn't even passed yet.
2. This page really shouldn't be edited, at all, until it is unprotected.
3. Since when does ArbCom declare policy?

--Conti|✉ 18:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the motion has passed now. But that doesn't change point #3. Guettarda (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, see here. Make a RfC or something to gather consensus before changing the long-standing wording, instead of people edit-warring a new version in the middle of a content dispute. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Irrespective of that, I've documented the history of this case here Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Ruling (BLP Deletions). It'll at least go a long way for future BLP editors. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONSENSUS. ArbCom does not decide policy. ArbCom's role is to resolve editing disputes, and they have overstepped their bounds in a poorly considered and worded motion. Fences&Windows 19:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose ArbCom would be well advised to keep orderly processes in WP. Once a belief that WP editors set WP policy is briken, WP editors will have little faith in WP processes in the future. Collect (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. In these hours, the whole concept of process is under jeopardy, and we have to do everything to maintain it. Process is not mere bureaucracy, it's there for a reason: to above that this place becomes a jungle where whoever twists arms more, wins. Unfortunately this seems to be the case lately. Now, there is a RfC on the matter: let's wait for its outcome. --Cyclopia^talk 00:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  The "concept of process" should be "in jeopardy", when that process collides with BLP issues. UnitAnode 01:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wait some. The ongoing RfC is addressing this issue. Once it finishes in a couple of weeks or so, we should have some new policy language, based on broad community input, to add to this policy page regarding what to do about unsourced BLP material, including entire articles that are unsourced. Please go participate in the RfC if you haven't already. Cla68 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The arbitration committee interprets policy definitively (and of course in doing so, makes policy--it's unavoidable). The Committee here has correctly affirmed the primacy of the BLP, just as it did in Badlydrawnjeff. This will, in effect, mean that we may in future have a BLP, rather than the ghost of one. Thus arbcom has made policy: namely the now four-year-old BLP. Arbcom needs to keep making the same policy until the people who think it doesn't count or isn't a real policy or has exceptions or is subject to the notability guideline, etc, etc, etc, give up. --TS 01:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. The arbcom "sets policy" when a certain contingent of the community begins to think that WP:CONSENSUS is a bludgeon to keep others from cleaning up the BLP problem. BLP trumps consensus, when consensus is wrong. Period. UnitAnode 01:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP trumps consensus, when consensus is wrong.: Tell me your definition of "wrong". Because, you know, in a community, "wrong" is what the consensus thinks it is wrong, usually. Unless your ethics descends directly from God or something like that, of course. How do you define "wrong"? --Cyclopia^talk 12:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Unit's analysis. It's wrong to think that after an ArbCom has actually gone ahead and commended administrators for deleting unsourced/poorly sourced BLPs, we still can revisit the question of what needs to be done. And obviously, we're not even discussing Kevin's off-wiki permissions (or lack of) out here. The changes should be made right now simply based on on-wiki ArbCom rulings. The policy change discussions will keep going on, and will be re-referred to ArbCom in case they in any way whatsoever, move away from the current ArbCom ruling. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree Wikipedia has been drifting in the last few years towards an attitude that allows almost anything to stand, leading to a gradual decline in Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia policy is, and I believe always has been, that unsourced material should be removed, and the extent to which editors have decided to place limitations on this principal has been quite destructive. The fact that ArbCom has made a decision to support taking this policy at face value should be an encouragement to try to move consensus back against the direction of that drift. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

These impressions of the history of the project are quite inaccurate. There is no doubt that standards have been constantly rising. Take any article and look at its history for proof. Wikipedia policy has never been that unsourced material should be removed. This has been debated many times, but always defeated.John Z (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be wrong John. The Foundation has always (since some time) been to the strict view that unsourced material on BLPs should be removed/nuked. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Arbcom does not set policy, the community sets policy, see WP:POLICY. The wikimedia foundation reserves some rights but I do not see them being exercised in this case and they are only for exceptional circumstances. Wikimedia says explicitly that the consensus of wikipedia sets policy. As to the business at hand I view it as silly. Being referenced does not make bios less likely to have libel. What wikipedia has to do is have procedures in place for checking and fixing libellous information in bios and it needs to respond quickly if there is a complaint. That has practically nothing to do wit6h being referenced, there was no check made on whether this was a source of problems or whether this would fix anything and the evidence I've seen since shows there isn't one and it wouldn't anyway. This is all a waste of time and against the interests of wikipedia as an encyclopaedia as far as I can see. If Arbcom see themselves as imposing rules then I invoke WP:IAR for this. Dmcq (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose officially, Arbcom does not make policy, unofficially, indirectly, yes, it does. Tony Sidaway knows that. The motion stated: "The Committee recommends, in particular, that a request for comments be opened to centralize discussion on the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people."[5] Ironically, the abuse of these three admins ignoring and having "utter contempt" for consensus, and intentionally disrupting wikipedia, was rewarded by this Arbcom and RFC. The RFC, and the RFC alone decides this policy. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 22:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dmcq and Ikip. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Generating lists of unreferenced BLPs by WikiProject tag

Due to all the fuss about deleting unreferenced BLPs, I'd like to add references to many articles I created earlier in my editing history that were probably left unreferenced. Is there any way of generating a list of articles that are tagged as unreferenced BLPs and as WikiProject Israel? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind using an external search tool, a google search for "Israeli Jews" "Living people" "Contentious material" site:en.wikipedia.org might help. The trick is to find a category (in this case Israeli Jews) that appears on the article page rather than the talk page. The phrase "Contentious material" is a standard part of {{BLPUnreferenced}} and is relatively unlikely to occur in the body of an article. - Pointillist (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC).

After some further testing, suggest removing the "Living people" term, so the search is simply "Israeli Jews" "Contentious material" site:en.wikipedia.org. - Pointillist (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - managed to find a few using this technique. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added a subscription to cleanup listings to WikiProject Israel. It will appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/Cleanup listing in a couple of days. It includes unreferenced BLPs based on the latest database dump. Rettetast (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My solution

{{BLP unverified}}

Put into action: [6].

Hopefully this approach will be embraced by the community as a middle ground between the asinine extremes of summary deletion and paralyzing eventualism.--Father Goose (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC) is very nice (though probably works better on pages where it is not lost beneath so many project banners!). I do hope it catches on. Jheald (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Perhaps a version for completely unreferenced articles too? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a great idea! It is very possible we could have a bot stubify these articles down to the first sentence. Shouldn't the banner be on main space, not the talk page? Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 02:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This template is intended to be used when stubbing an article down to just its sourced statements. If you want to use it on a completely unreferenced BLP, add at least one source first.

I think the talk page is the better place for it, for two reasons: one is that there is something to be said for hiding potential libel from the average reader, and the other is that we don't want to tempt IPs to restore the "unreferenced version" reflexively. The target audience of the template is editors who will actually pay attention to the requirement that sources be added -- i.e., those who might actually use the talk page.--Father Goose (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be a different version, but a notice like this could be left for unsourced BLPs as well. It could be one for the main page that simply notes that the article is on hiatus, and one for the talk page that points to the earlier version. The point is to preserve the information for article editors to process in the future, while quickly hiding the inormation from casual readers. Automated tools can do that in a hurry to quickly address the BLP concern, but only editors can add sources or make a reasonable call that an article is unsalvageable. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Yeah, I think I could support that, although I think certain other approaches emerging in the RfC have more promise. But things are still very much up in the air at this point.--Father Goose (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to use it on a completely unreferenced BLP, add at least one source first.

Um, then it is really not a solution, because I don't think any group can source 50,000 articles in one month (when this RFC closes).Ikip 00:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If ArbCom ends up sanctioning the removal of all unsourced BLPs within a month's time (implicitly or otherwise), there's no solution save having to undelete and fix them one by one. I have to hope that a reasonable timeframe will be adopted that allows the work to be done while the articles are still accessible to non-admins. Stub-and-archive is the fastest approach we can hope for that still allows non-admins to restore the remaining material according to the time available to them.--Father Goose (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I asked User:Bali ultimate if he'd be interested in using it, as he's been doing a lot of stubbing; his reply was to remove my comment with the edit summary "Nope".[7] How nice to see such communication. Fences&Windows 03:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, he is... not a... nice person. That doesn't change the utility of the template. You could always add it yourself to the articles he's stubbed. If he then wars over its removal, we could then ask others whether they feel use of the template is reasonable.--Father Goose (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Um... when, if ever, would this template get removed? Probably just about every article in Wikipedia contains an unreferenced statement somewhere in its history. As written, this template looks like you could add 'his favourite colour is green' (say) to an article, add this template, and then leave it there indefinitely until someone is able to find a source for this unverifiable claim. I'm sure that's not the intention, so perhaps it needs to be rewritten slightly to clarify its purpose. Robofish (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, there's a bigger problem here: uncontentious unsourced information about living people is not a problem. In the example you gave, [8], adding the template solves nothing - it takes away material from the reader, uncontroversial material which is probably true, and doesn't do anything to provide a source itself. In the absence of sources, we should assume in good faith that material is factually accurate. Removing uncontentious unsourced information is against the very spirit of Wikipedia. Robofish (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with that, but in light of the current environment, stub-and-archive is probably our best hope for recovering over time the massive amount of content that is about to be removed summarily.--Father Goose (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, good point. I intended to use it on Terry Downes, but I was able to locate sources for just about everything, and removed some "personal life" stuff for which sources were not forthcoming. That's what I meant by "once all sourceable information has been restored", but that language could be tweaked. I might take a shot at it, or feel free to change it yourself.--Father Goose (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And looking over the article again, I was able to find sources for just about all the "personal life" stuff as well. Maybe no tweak is needed to the template's instructions -- for now.--Father Goose (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My solution also

How about:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#User:Ikip_Technical_option_building_on_Balloonman.27s_idea

Thanks for taking the time to consider it. :) Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 03:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Interview with the person as reliable source

Can an interview with the subject of an article be considered a reliable source?--Mycomp (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what you are sourcing. e.g. If in an interview Homer Simpson says his favourite food is doughnuts, then yes, however if Elizabeth Windsor claimed to be Queen of England, then I would want a more reliable source. Martin451 (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer.--Mycomp (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It does, however, have to be a published interview in a reliable source, not one you conducted yourself or watched on stage at a convention. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a complex question to answer in the abstract. Some of the things that make sources reliable are that they do fact-checking, they have editorial oversight, there is accountability and a process for issuing corrections should they make mistakes, there is a reputation for accuracy and neutrality. In the case of an interview there are far fewer concerns and they are of a different nature: did they accurately quote what the person said? Is it selective or cherry-picked, representative or out-of-context? If in translation, is the translation fair? I think there are a number of sources that are potentially unreliable as to facts that are actually trustworthy for reporting the transcript of an interview. Other sources by contrast are not trustworthy in that regard - for example, press releases often contain quotations attributed to a person that are actually made by the person's publicist. Advocacy journalists often misrepresent a person's statements. But that only goes as far as correctly reporting that a person actually said certain things. As for whether the things the person said are true, it has the same problem as any self-reported information. When Muhammad Ali said "I am the greatest" we can't simply take his word and "Muhammed Ali was the greatest"; the best we can make of that if reliably sourced is that he often made that statement. It may well have been true but we need third party sourcing for that. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To carry this a little further, suppose the matter is an utterly uncontroversial claim such as that "X is left-handed". In normal circumstances one has no reason to doubt that claim. So whether this is an interview in the New York Times or one in a small town free weekly, we can probably say cite it for the proposition that X is in fact left-handed. Or better yet, "X says that he/she is left-handed" with a citation to the source. You never know why people say things about themselves, and even the best of sources are only incrementally more likely to question a person's claims when they simply quote them. This particular line of thinking is a bit of a stretch I must admit, I don't know whether there is a fully-developed approach to this on the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tut tut, I think one would have to be very careful to get a reliable source of a person's Left-handedness#Negative associations of left-handedness in language. Dmcq (talk)

If I have personal knowledge of a person's background and then use a newspaper report with which I am unconnected as a source, is this any more valid? If so, should it be signified and if so how? In particular, I am thinking about BLPs of famous sportsmen who were at University with me and their inclusion in the list of alumini of my University. Martinvl (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

DashBot false positives

Not sure exactly what the DashBot is looking for when it tries to identify unreferenced articles. However it got it wrong with Della Jones. Human editors can clearly see a reference source at the end of the article but apparently the bot can't. Perhaps its script could be modified to pick up this type of case. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not in citation given

I see that a line in the lead has a failed-verification tag, but I don't see why this is necessary. It is correct, in fact, that the source provided (i.e., Jimbo's WikiEN-l thread) does not precisely verify the line. But it is equally true, as far as I can tell, that the source was not intended to "verify" anything in the first place. Because Jimbo states in the source that his message "is not a policy statement", the reference to the statement here could not have been intended to verify policy in the first place. Rather, the spirit of his thread is consistent with the spirit of what became policy here, and vice versa. In other words, the citation is a footnote, a cross-reference, that gives further information from a slightly different angle; it's not a "source" that has to line up exactly with the wording of the policy. So, IMO, the tag definitely is overkill. But if it would help, perhaps the citation could be framed more clearly as a cross-reference: <ref name=Jimbo>cf. some reflections by [[Jimmy Wales]]: [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"], May 16, 2006 and [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046732.html May 19, 2006]</ref> Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support removing the tag. Policy pages don't get article tags, period. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be worried by wrong references, but in general these project pages don't need reliable sources etc, and there's even a bit of policy saying so WP:POLICY#Not part of the encyclopedia Dmcq (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• The problem here is that the policy is currently protected on a version which contains a hotly contested recent change. The "not in citation" tag was apparently an attempt to note this problem; really, what should be done is {{underdiscussion|talk="unsourced or poorly sourced CONTENTIOUS material"}} added, and "not in citation" removed.--Father Goose (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Right, so even though many of us are admins, we're discussing what seems like a pretty obvious and trivial change. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not an admin. If I were, at this moment, I'd be bold and make the change. (Hint, hint.)--Father Goose (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)