User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

A radical idea; BLP opt-out for all

Every time some borderline notable person complains about their article, we have to have these nasty, drawn-out fights in order to actually get it done...or not done, as that is the regrettable direction that the Jim Hawkins bio is heading. Huge wars over if the person is really notable or what degree of sorta kinda non-notability the person has in order to qualify for WP:BIODELETE, then we have to deal with the spite, both from editors here who see the deletion as a grave travesty and those off-wiki who may be friends of the person or just interested parties.

So rather the same fight over and over about how much of a sliver to open BIODELETE and all requests through, here's what we do.

Throw it open. All the way.

Any living person, subject to identity verification via OTRS, may request the deletion of their article. No discussion, no AfD, just *poof*. In its place is a simple template explaining why there is no longer an article there, and a pointer to where the reader can find information on the subject, a link similar to Template:Find sources at the top of every AfD.

Yes, this is radical and yes "for all" really does mean for all, so as unlikely the chance is, if Barack Obama requested deletion of his article, yes, it will be gone. This is encyclopedia that people come to to find information about a subject. That doesn't mean that that information has to be here all of the time, and I think the actual number of people who would take advantage of this would be so vanishingly small as to be inconsequential. Let the Jim Hawkins' and Don Murphys of the world be at peace, for once. I realize that to many, the Wikipedia is a paradise, but we have to face the truth of that matter is that sometimes some people just want to find the exit. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

An interesting idea. Somehow, I can't see that getting approved as policy though... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am minded to support this idea. This is a serious problem for Wiki - we cannot be seen, as a project, to be putting our fingers in our ears to serious requests by people because of a high-minded idea of 'value' or 'worth'. doktorb _words^deeds 20:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose with a side order of WTF? This is a proposal to abdicate any responsibility, because one or two individuals a year get antsy about the content of their articles. I reject any such move, although I certainly will accept that it's meant in good faith, however incomprehensible it may be to me as a historian and journalist; and it's certainly, ummm... bold! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I have long supported giving people of marginal notability the option of "opting out" of Wikipedia. For me, the question was always where to draw the line, and I know that I would draw that line in a different place than others, but I never suspected that anyone would suggest that Wikipedia could not do without the biography of Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). I support Tarc's ambitious and futile proposal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• hell no and this isn't the forum for the discussion. We need to be fair and careful with how we deal with BLPs...but all out deletions for anyone who requests it shouldn't even be considered as an option. --Onorem♠Dil 20:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"it shouldn't even be considered as an option". why not? Do we have a policy on things we aren't allowed to think about? How we decide that something is unthinkable without thinking about it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly I'm offering an opinion. Think about whatever the hell you want to. Offer up whatever ideas you want to. I think this entire argument is a non-starter. If a person is notable, we shouldn't feel obligated to delete their bio just because they ask us to. When it comes to borderline cases, the input might make a difference. This proposal is simplistic and unrealistic. --Onorem♠Dil 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There isn't actually anything unrealistic about the proposed change. If this were enacted, it could be very easily done (verifying identity would be the most difficult part, but we apparently do that already for other OTRS processes). The fact that some people might not want to allow people to opt out does not mean that it could not be done, and done with very little difficulty. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Unrealistic is a poor choice of wording I guess. Clearly it could be done. I think (there's that opinion thing again) that it would be remarkably stupid to allow any bio subject to request (and be granted without question) deletion of their article. It's still far too simplistic of a suggestion to useful.) --Onorem♠Dil 21:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I am being dense, but why? Why is it too simplistic to be useful? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This still isn't the forum for the discussion. Why is it too simplistic? Do you actually believe that any person who wants for any reason to have their article deleted should have that request granted? People are sometimes notable...whether they like it or not. I don't see how it's reasonable to say that any person can have their article deleted for any reason. Is that a simple enough explanation for my thoughts? --Onorem♠Dil 22:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, DC: if Barack Obama came here and asked us to remove his article, should we? Should we really not have an article on a President of the United States? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'd go along with default to delete for the marginally notable. But this would just be a recipe for newbie biting. Who would like the task of explaining to people that various arrested murderers and war criminals couldn't have wikipedia articles written on them because they had requested it? And then what do we do if a bunch of senior US politicians decide they'd rather have their bios on their own sites and Conservapedia but not here? ϢereSpielChequers 20:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - would make life much easier for some editors (and even more exasperated admins), but also for any celebrity or politician wishing to quickly hide any kind of unflattering indiscretion or major scandal? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed! —MistyMorn (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Silly nonsense from a Wikipedia Review activist. Prioryman (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No, I think they call themselves something like Wikipedocrats now they have signed up to the all new agenda. Though I'm probably being unfair, we should probably check with the Arbcom members and Oversight members that are active supporters of the Wikipedocracy and hence are themselves promoting Greg Kohs. --Fæ (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Can we do away with this ridiculous "WR bad" canard, please? You lost the WP:BADSITES argument a long time ago, not to mention that...as i noted earlier...WR is dead and the splinter faction is not something I even really support. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In practice, when I get a complaint from someone who wants their article deleted, I'll look at the page. If the page is not verifiable, then this is easy - I'll delete the page on those grounds. If the page is verifiable, but either not notable or only marginally notable, I will likely choose to delete the page for them. Obviously this involves a judgement call about what constitutes 'marginally notable'. Most of the time no one complains about the deletion, and all is well. If someone does object to the deletion then I'd first let them know why the page was deleted, and then we can go to DRV or AfD as needed. This approach handles most BLP deletion requests fairly nicely. However, there are some articles where the inclusion of the page is important to the project. For these highly visible, people I would not agree with deleting these pages simply because the subject doesn't want a factual, neutral piece (as determined by our consensus process) written about them. Unlike for articles about minor figures, attention to their article should be sufficient to prevent the addition of disparaging material. I'd argue that the desires of the readers looking for this article outweigh the desires of the subject. It would be impossible to make this site work if we cared only about the subjects of pages, or only about the readers, or even only about the editors. A balance has to be struck, and this proposal does not do that. Prodego ^talk 20:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Unilaterally deleting articles of "marginally notable" persons is not permitted by WP:CSD and the fact that no one happens to notice such an abuse doesn't justify it. Just because the original author has retired and no one else has it watchlisted doesn't mean it has no utility to our readership. Such articles should always go through AfD. Dcoetzee 21:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia, no matter how much we love it, is just a website along with Facebook. If somebody wants their details gone, then who are we to say no? Think of it as wanting to unsubscribe from a web community where you don't want to get the newsletter any more. If they dig their heels in and keep on sending their stuff, it's annoying and counterproductive. --Pete (talk)
  • Being a website does not make an information source frivolous or unimportant. Deleting articles directly damages readers who take advantage of that information to learn and complete real-world tasks, and content reusers who take advantage of the article to help others make informed decisions. The needs of the individual are worthy of consideration, but the needs of the many may exceed them. The availability of information elsewhere does not negate this, because such information may either be more difficult to access, misrepresent the subject, or get taken down eventually. Dcoetzee 21:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • You learned nothing from this, did you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The needs of the individual are worthy of consideration, but the needs of the many may exceed them. You know, that sounds like Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism rephrased, and it still sounds like a copout for doing harm to others. Can we find a solution that doesn't do any harm at all? --Pete (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
      • No, we can't. Every time you post anything online you are hurting or risking hurting somebody, even if only by displacing commercial opportunities to provide that same content. The goal of Wikipedia is to produce an overall benefit to society. @Delicious, I would not compare the utility of an orphaned image of little conceivable use to an article on a notable person read by hundreds to thousands of people, much less to the article on Barack Obama as the OP suggested. Dcoetzee 23:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Quite a humbling comparison there, Pete, although my relatively miniscule contribtion here means I'm not as offended as some editors might be. Still, perhaps Mark Zuckerberg will buy us one day, and then we can just officially un-friend each other? ".. just a website along with Facebook?" .. like Queen Elizabeth II is just royalty along with Burger King perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

i think it sets up for gaming the system. someone doesnt want an article that accurate portrays some less than perfect aspects of their life. and then "oh i changed my mind" start fresh. if you cannot change your mind, then there are situations i am aware of such as a young quiz show participant who really unfairly became a target of public ridicule in the media and on the Wikipedia page about xir could very rightly say "get me off". and then they grow up and become a famous politician and nobel prize winner or cures cancer or becomes the next elvis and we would have no article. I dont think this "cure" has any chance of solving any more problems than it creates. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Um, votes? Seriously? This is Jimbo's talk page, not a platform for policy-making. The intent was just to see what the general sense of the idea was. Chillax yo shizzles, as a hipster Snoop Dogg would put it. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I honestly think the embers of this particular drama are too dim to be worth stoking now. Move on already. FormerIP (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. I think most department stores will regret seeing their handbag sales drop once all the Wikipedians stop throwing them at each other. If someone sees a Louis Vuitton on the pile, it's mine. --Fæ (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• This would essentially mean that any tyrant in the world could send a line to the Foundation and get their article deleted, since it discusses the fully verifiable and, often, internationally recognized negative information about them. This is entirely unacceptable and a worthless proposal. Silverseren^C 22:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • See, that's the kind of vitriol that I find a bit puzzling at times. Somewhere along the line, "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" seems to have warped into a right to write an article about anyone of your choosing. What exactly gives you the right to write about a marginal person? We're not talking about the Tiger Woods or Angelina Jolie of the world here ultimately, but of the woman who barely scrapes by WP:PROF or the guy who placed 8th in the 1988 Olympics. Do they have any say at all in how or where a website writes about them? Any? Tarc (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • so you are advocating a "some can drop out , but not others" - how and where would you be able to draw that line? and we would be right back to where we are "yes this person is in the drop out zone." "no they are not". -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Sigh. Did you note post #1 where I gave the Obama example? There is no line drawn in this idea, none at all. I don't think the ultra-famous really care about the Wikipedia as the coverage of them in the world is so over-saturated, we're just one stop among thousands. This is aimed at the marginally notable and those who are aggrieved enough about it to want to be wiped from the project, but the option would be available to all. Tarc (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
        • • I did read post #1. And then I read your post where you said "We're not talking about the Tiger Woods or Angelina Jolie". So either we are talking about Tiger and Angela and say Robert Mugabe, or we are not. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
            • Really not sure how to explain it again in better terms. What this proposal seeks to do is to take WP:BIODELETE and remove the "relatively unknown, non-public figures" clause. I want to eliminate the endless haggle over just who qualifies for that clause by just throwing it all wide open so the people like Jim Hawkins can get off the pages in this project just by asking. The later comment about Tiger and whatnot was just an aside about how I think famous people were unlikely to ever take advantage of this. That is all. And if they did actually want to? That fine too. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Different proposal:

But which would require WMF to actually make a decision.

Any person desiring his or her biography to be deleted from Wikipedia shall furnish sufficient reason for such deletion. A committee shall dispassionately evalute the reasoning, and such decisions as are made by the committee shall not be reviewable except by the Arbitration Committee. Reasons which may be accepted include, but are not limited to, insufficient notability, notoriety for a single event, vandalism of information in the biography, and legal requirements of the venue in which the person resides.

This differs substantially from the proposal above, but, I hope, addresses some legitimate concerns. Collect (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hell no As I said below, this is an encyclopedia. You can't very well tear out "Mussolini" from every copy of EB ever printed, can you? No - the subject existed, their notability was not temporary, the article exists. Deleting one "at the wish of the subject" was the stupidest thing done; period. Let's stop arguing about deletions, and let's simply make sure they meet BLP requirements as a whole, and protect them from defacement - period (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • LOL -- that would hardly occur -- if a committee made the decision that a person is not notable, then the current semi-circus of !votes would finally end. My suggestion does not say "at the wish of the subject" -- perhaps you meant to place it up the page a hair? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think the resources exist to staff such a committee, unless it were volunteer-based, in which case we'd have... pretty much the same thing we have now? Dcoetzee 23:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Note the WMF comment at the start. Yep -- those folks would have to be the ones to set up the committee at that point, as the current !vote system is clearly broken. (anyone question this?) I suspect they would only need 5 part time workers on the task max - with input from WMF Legal as needed. Say under $50K a year would get a pretty fair job done. Maybe much less once the first hundred or so cases get done. Collect (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely question the claim that "the current !vote system is clearly broken". While I've seen some cases where I would have voted differently, I don't know of any where I see that the process is "clearly broken". In the Jim Hawkins case, I originally mentioned that I thought the article should be deleted. Then I went through it line-by-line and did my homework and changed my mind. I wouldn't be acutely bothered and consider the system broken no matter which way that particular example went - that's the thing about borderline cases; they are cases where reasonable people can disagree. I can think of no reason whatsoever to think that Foundation staff could do a better job, and lots of reasons to think that they would do a much much worse job (their incentives would be structurally wrong).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In this case I disagree -- not on the point that the WMF is not staffed with the right people for the task, but with your position that the !vote system is not "broken." On and off-wiki CANVASSing has been done in the past on AfDs (well-documented) and !votes absolutely not founded in Wikipedia policy are common. Votes like "per nom" are rife still in those discussions, and in a few cases it appears that groups may descend or have descended on AfDs (not counting the ARS former issues, and similar groups of AfD regulars in "opposition.") Where a BLP is the issue, especially of any person about whom contentious edits have been made, the process problems are exacerbated. Hence my choice of "broken." Hence my specific suggestion for listed reasons for deletion of a BLP where the subject requests deletion - making subjective judgements is not a good place for !voting - and generally produces more heat than light. I take it you would have preferred "the current system sometimes generates more heat than light with the system of !votes 'unrelated' to specific policy-based reasons for deletion"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I see your point, where in other AfDs there might be a suspicious influx of !votes in a short segment of time, and they do not provide evidence of rational reasons, but instead, they just dogpile on a particular Support/Oppose position. I also think that an AfD should be issue-structured, to decide each issue on logical merits, regardless of how many people feel a certain leaning. Rather than state "Oppose" or "Support", each issue could be considered as applicable "yes/no". By separating issues into analytical form, there would be less superstitious voting and more focus on objective, logical decisions. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• The last thing this project needs is more Foundation interference in the content of this encyclopedia. Something like that might well end my participation on Wikipedia. Strongly object to both proposals. Both compromise the neutrality of our content and negatively impact our ability to fulfill our mandate. You might as well just close up shop at that point. Resolute 00:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose all this stuff. Note that if "repeated vandalism" is an excuse to delete, anyone looking to delete articles just needs a few spare IP addresses. Wnt (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Guaranteed deletion of a BLP on request of the subject is not a new idea, and it is totally undesirable. It would allow famous individuals to ensure that only their personal websites or PR handouts could be used as reference sources. As for the Jim Hawkins saga, enough said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Jim Hawkins case is a really interesting one in that it is unusual. The article about Mr. Hawkins is a perfectly good article. The thing that he's traditionally been upset about is his date of birth being listed in the article, even though he has openly talked about it on twitter and the radio. As we don't have a reliable source for that, it's out of the article now. For hundreds of other biographies this would be considered just a normal editorial discussion ending in the right decision. In this case, Mr. Hawkins has expressed mental anguish over it. To be clear: I think a couple of people should be topic-banned from the article, if they won't voluntarily agree to leave it alone, because their presence around the article is causing Mr. Hawkins to be upset. But what makes this case interesting is that his being upset is actually quite unreasonable. He insisted this past weekend that the article contained errors, but refused to tell me what they were. So I went through it personally in extreme detail, verifying in reliable sources every single sentence of the article. I haven't got a clue what errors he thinks the article has. He's upset at the very existence of the article, even though he is clearly a notable public figure, even though the article contains nothing negative about him, etc. I think that the wishes of the subject are something that we should take into account with compassion, even when those wishes are completely unreasonable, but only as one factor among many.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spending so much time on this case. I would like to point out for all readers, that the only time that Jim Hawkins has emailed a request for help from Wikimedia was in September 2009, and there was a lengthy and positive dialogue back then (despite claims to the contrary, the first response from an OTRS volunteer to his original complaint was given in less than 12 hours of sending the email; not bad for a system manned by unpaid volunteers). The email from 2009 is referenced at the top of the article talk page and is the basis for successfully enforcing the personal information policy with respect to birth dates. If Jim Hawkins, or anyone with problems with articles containing biographical information about their personal lives, has further problems or complaints then emailing infowikimedia.org is an effective way to get helpful and confidential support. --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Since there are three issues at hand here (the general borderline-notable BLP issue, the issue of the BLP of Hawkins, and the issue of the complaints brought by an IP that claims to be Hawkins) things start to get complicated pretty soon. Pertaining to the very last, might it be a good idea to try to contact Hawkins, preferably through pro-active OTRS action if that is possible, to protect the privacy of Hawkins, to get a definitive yay or nay on whether the IP is in fact Hawkins, to get at least one element of complication untangled from the rest of the discussion, and get a statement from who we know is Hawkins on the issue? I wouldn't be opposed to Jimbo contacting him either, since one of the expressed possible anguishes from Hawkins is the concept of anonymous people aggregating information on him. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that an accurate assessment here involves looking at the article's long and cumulative history, rather than just its present state. Because from the subject's point of view, this history can repeat itself any day. I would like to invite people to read the comments from Skyring (Pete) and ErrantX at WP:AN. These comments give some indication of the history of this BLP. It's been an intermittent, but recurrent venue for harassment and a constant source of discomfort for years. I do not see Wikipedia as having the moral right to inflict this on someone like Hawkins – in the interest of free knowledge? As Dcoetzee says, there are trade-offs. Wikipedia is playing roulette with someone's no. 1 Google link, and telling that person that if they don't like it they are a "pratt". --JN466 10:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I already said this a few days ago, but this argument, that "the biography is fine now", reminds me of a garbage collection company that has, for years, failed to collect a city's garbage reliably, leaving the city's residents to drown in rubbish time and again. If, faced with losing their contract because residents have finally had enough, they make one almighty effort and finally clean up the streets, they don't get to say, "What problem? The streets are clean!" Especially if rubbish is already beginning to build up again just as they are saying that. JN466 10:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• 'Oppose - if a notable person can't stand the heat they need to just get the hell out of the kitchen. They wanted their 15 minutes worth of fame so now they've got it. Don't want an article about themselves on Wikipedia, well tough titty.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's funny how in views like this one there is always someone else to blame. If the Wikipedia biography of some media person falsely states they are a homophobe, an alcoholic, or an antisemite, then that is their fault, because they chose to become famous. Beg pardon? Somehow, it's never the fault of Wikipedia ... I'm not sure what the OP proposed is the ideal solution, but to say that there just isn't a problem, and our biography subjects deserve what's coming their way because they were foolish enough to become notable enough for people to write about them, is deeply offensive. That kind of disregard for the rights of others is what defines a sociopath, and it is endemic here. JN466 12:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Come now, Jayen, don't insult everyone's intelligence with such garbage. Nobody said they should have to deal with false claims, nor that it would be their fault if they did. However, notable people do have people writing about them, whether it is Wikipedia or someone's blog or news stories or whatever. That is the price of being a public individual. At least on Wikipedia, our goal (even if we aren't perfect) is to be accurate. That is more than can be said for some outlets. Also, please spare everyone the Ludwigsesque nonsense of accuing anyone who doesn't support your view of being a 'sociopath', or the like. Nonsense like that reflects far more poorly on you than it does those you respond to. Resolute 13:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
      • You might want to withdraw that. He (Ludwigs2) did not accuse everyone who opposed him of being a sociopath. The argument you're alluding to, concerning the autistic/sociopathic ethos here and its origins, is much more subtle, and worthy of more respect than you pay it with that straw man characterisation of it as an indiscriminately deployed epithet. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, it's an indiscriminately deployed epithet with some moronic pop psychology behind it. FormerIP (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
          • • It's this kind of response to the feelings and welfare of others, this lack of concern for the real life effects of our choices here that concerns me, JN466 and others. (You need to read the post that comment is responding to, for context). I'm afraid it is a response typical of unsocialised autistics, who don't grasp social consequences well, and psychopaths, who don't care about harm to others. That's not to say people who respond like that are autistic or psychopathic, it is to say that somehow this kind of response is a respectable part of the ethos here. It's de facto policy. The idea that we should respond compassionately (at no real cost to the project) in situations like this one, where genuine distress is likely being caused, is sneered at. I hate this about Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
          • I am the editor Jayen claimed is the definition of a sociopath. May I also add that the epithet was accompanied with the typical balls-out stance that so many editors adopt behind the safety of a PC screen. I really don't think he would flash such a big pair were he to actually encounter living, breathing Early Grace-Lenny Murphy types of sociopath.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• • • • I am sorry, Resolute, but false claims appear about individuals in Wikipedia on a daily basis. If biography subjects complain about that, or want to opt out, and people here say they shouldn't have gotten famous if they "can't stand the heat", that's not a reasonable attitude. Wikipedia should get its biographies sorted – start registered editing for minor biographies, move them to a different project, introduce flagged revisions, make biography editing a separate user right, things like that. As long as editors here say that it is "normal" for Wikipedia to contain false, unfair or defamatory information about people on a daily basis, and notable people should not expect anything else from a project that keeps telling the world what a "noble purpose" it has, I will call that a sociopathic culture. JN466 16:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
        • • For fu.ks sake, read my bloody comments. Where the hell do I say that it's OK for Wikipedia articles to contain false or defamatory information? If you would bother your arse to actually READ what I wrote instead of spouting verbal rubbish, you would see that I was talking about notables who winge over having an article here. I said NOTHING about false information. Just yesterday I had to deal with BLP issues on a Troubles-related page which has a 1RR, and you were certainly nowhere about with your Crusader sword in hand. Please DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
            • If you agree that Wikipedia has a BLP problem, why do you think it is so unreasonable for subjects to want to opt out of having a biography here? --JN466 16:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Dealing with false claims is one thing. Compromising the neutrality of and censoring our encyclopedia to suit biographical subjects who don't like the fact that they do not have complete control over their public profile is another. Separate concepts, and only the former should be any kind of priority here. Resolute 17:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think Tarc expected his proposal to be adopted of course. Its a Radical Idea to make people think. In my opinion, every two-bit politician with any whiff of controversy, or charlatan like Keith Raniere, with any common sense, would indeed request his article be deleted. If I advised Rick Santorum, I'd advise him to request it tomorrow, as part of a campaign to denounce Wikipedia generally. If we want to deal with the issue of marginal BLPs, remember that they comprise a small sliver of our entire project content, that most of them are not contentious, and that only a small sliver of this small sliver goes to AfD for the type of drama Tarc refers to. My personal opinion in this small number of BLP cases is that if the subject is of truly marginal notability, subject has specifically requested deletion, and any important content can be distributed elsewhere (such that the outcome of the AfD is otherwise going to be subject to the randomness of who shows up), we should delete. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Bernstein (musician).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Tarc's suggestion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the deletion review, it seems as though the closing admin misread BIODEL. He believes that BIODELETE does *not* allow the deletion of articles about marginally notable people, and in fact asks other editors to gain consensus to change it so that it does. See here: [[[1]]

What is the way forward for this BLP subject? One way forward could be editors like SlimVirgin, Dweller, DGG, Youreallycan etc working towards creating an addition to BIODEL or to BLPDEL that confirms that marginally notable people, irrespective of whether their BLP is an attack page or not, may request successfully the removal of their BLP from our project.

Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Any such changes would have to go through a widely advertised RfC. Also, "marginally notable" is just another way to say "person who complains a lot about their bio". Either you are notable, or you aren't. Personally, I would rather dicuss raising the notability bar for certain professions rather than discuss ways to compromise Wikipedia's neutrality by allowing subjects to dictate our content. Resolute 16:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, look at the sources in Hawkins' biography. More than half of them primary sources (local BBC), plus a few regional. Nothing national, except a bare mention in the Guardian. The man arguably fails GNG altogether. --JN466 16:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The outcome of the AFD disagreed. Resolute 17:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The BBC isn't a primary source unless you're claiming that the person from the BBC personally knows everything about Mr Hawkins and is writing from their own experience. Some of them are written by Hawkins himself and are primary but most will be secondary or tertiary. The question of whether they are secondary independent or secondary non-independent is another issue. In an organisation as big as the BBC there's every likelihood that the web editors will write and edit independently from presenters so even the claim that the sources are non-independent secondary is probably an unlikely one to be true. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Stuart, if ibm.com hosts a resumé or CV of one of their managers, that is a primary source. Likewise if ibm.com hosts a page on a project that manager leads. People get confused because they see BBC and think it is a secondary source. It isn't in such a case. Notability is demonstrated by coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. A BBC page about a BBC employee is reliable, but it is not independent, and it is not secondary. JN466 19:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayen, yes if IBM.com hosts a resumé or CV written by one of their managers, that is a primary source. However if a biography of one of their managers is written by an IBM PR person analyzing primary sources (HR records, external sources) and not based on their own experiences of the manager then it is definitely a secondary source. The fact it is hosted on IBM.com is not what makes it primary or secondary it is who has written it and where has the information come from. In this case the BBC person is not writing based on their experiences of Hawkins, but by analysing sources about Hawkins - this clearly makes it Secondary (or possibly tertiary) whether or not that person and Hawkins share a connection in the BBC. WP:PSTS outlines the differences between Primary, Secondary and Tertiary and for each of these there is the added consideration of whether the source is independent, or non-independent but this is a separate issue. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A BBC blurb or advertisement for one of Hawkins' programmes is neither secondary nor independent, even if it includes a short bio sketch. (A review of his programme in the Guardian, say, would be a secondary source.) Not to mention that a good few of the dozen sources were written by Hawkins himself: [2][3][4][5]. More generally, if you were to try to establish notability for any employee of a company based on a couple of brief bio sketches on the company's websites, you would fail. --JN466 23:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't make that assertion without knowing who wrote it, where their information came from, and what their connection with the show is - the basis that both are employed by the BBC is not enough and I already said "Some of them are written by Hawkins himself and are primary" - The problem with your last point is that nearly every Journalist or Presenter (Radio or TV) on Wikipedia are primarily noted in works they have created rather than works created about them. And often when works are created about them, they are created primarily in media associated with them. That's all the way down from Pulitzer Prize winners. Yes it doesn't apply to employees of companies in other fields, but we generally presume that media organisations will maintain their standards of neutrality, and fact checking when writing about their own employees - if you think this should be changed, then again that's a discussion for a policy page. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - While I agree with the suggestion up to a point, a policy that would permit the US President to have his article deleted would not be appropriate. Rather, there could be guidelines defining for BLPs with moderate or less notability. That would be a subset of existing notability guidelines and would take some work to set up. But (just taking US politicians), presidents, congressmen, cabinet members, governors would definitely not qualify. There are others such as (as much as it would be desirable to keep the guidelines as objective as possible) mayors of major cities. Of course, other categories of BLP would need to have their own guidelines (e.g., for US sports I would suggest that MLB, NHL, NBA and NFL players would not qualify). But for the remainder, I would have no problem with a policy permitting them to opt put of having a Wikipedia article despite meeting our notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I dont know that your suggestion is any more workable. What about the seemingly endless crop of celebutaunts - people whose whole "livelyhood" is based on their public presence, and generally the notoriety around it. When would they become "not deletable"? When they have their own reality series? When the reality series hits a certain Neilson rating? X number of twitter followers?-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't see why it would be unworkable. We are already capable of setting guidelines for notability. This would just set up more stringent guidelines for, shall we say, "super-notability." LPs who meet notability but not super-notability would be able to opt out of having a Wikipedia article. Hence, Hawkins might (depending on where the super-notability guidelines fall) be able to request his article deleted, and automatically have that request honored (possibly with discussion at the time as to whether he meets super-notability, which would presumably be more likely than a mere notability discussion to end in deletion). But Barak Obama would not. Rlendog (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is a very good suggestion. An alternative suggestion could be that BIODELETE is replaced with BIOKEEP, and we start erring on the side of the subject's request for deletion. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Can't see why wikistress for wikipedians matters as much as the rationale for this proposals suggests, also find the premise doubtful that this will reduce wikistress, by having subjects exercise rational and irrational content veto. In short, not a recipe for peace. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Um. Obviously the original proposal isn't workable, but what we could do is to say that biographies of marginally notable people should be deleted upon request. I think that's workable enough. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Tarc's request (with a condition). I confess my immediate reaction was somewhere between "no" and "hell,no" so I am sympathetic to anyone who reached that conclusion. Any other proposal requires some judgment, which is not an automatic bar to approval, but judgement, is, well judgement, and will virtually guarantee that we retain articles when some subjects and editors feel otherwise. This is inevitable when it comes to non-living subjects, but it is appropriate to treat living subjects specially. The proposal ha the virtue of not requiring judgement; if the subject requests removal, it is removed, no issues about marginal notability, or requirements for satisfactory reasons.
  

My one condition is intended to help alleviate the concerns of some of those who are opposed, as it may help keep the examples to a minimum—if any living person makes such a request, the article body is removed, but the title remains, and boilerplate text (e.g article removed upon request of the subject) added. This will make it clear that the lack of an article isn't just happenstance, and peer pressure will keep truly notable people from requesting removal. It almost certainly will mean the removal of some small number of marginal bio's, but that is a small price to pay for the ability to have a clear policy that would blunt the ability of subjects to complain publicly.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In every other article linking to the biography or mentioning the name, do we also have a template bot removing the subjects name and inserting Template:Name removed by request or whole sentences Template:Sentence/paragraph removed by request? Sounds like a whole new blue link style. Except not as informative. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong no - I already said this on the mailing list, but for the record here...

I disagree even with the more aggressive uses of BIODELETE now. BLP is a good idea, to take human effects of articles on living people into account. But we are an encyclopedia, and we contain articles on people and things. A biographical article's content may upset the subject; if that content is not NPOV and well sourced and so forth we need to correct that tout suite. An articles existence, once it's NPOV and well sourced, may still upset the subject, but at that point our role and project goal to be an encyclopedia becomes the dominant factor.

This is not to say that we should never delete those bios, nor that the subjects wishes have NO bearing. They're relevant to discussions and an issue. But the longstanding deletion criteria and process work just fine. Not every time, but the failures are those of particular implementation not the underlying policy or core project values.

We should not compromise core project values to make biography subjects feel happier.

Adjusting BLP a bit to try and discourage the grey area / corner cases is one thing. This proposal is an abdication of the project objective of being an encyclopedia (first), and is not OK. No. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, something needs to be done, because in many cases we are simply not living up to that project objective, as the #Examples above show. We have had over a decade, our biographies are more notable than ever before and as crap as ever, and editors are spread thinner than ever before relative to the total number of biographies Wikipedia contains. This will not get better by itself, George. JN466 17:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• All of you who are opposing Tarc's idea are unmitigated jackasses and really don't deserve to be part of something like Wikipedia. I don't know if your mothers didn't give you enough love, and/or you are so fat or boring that you need to take out your insecurities on people who are more popular, rich, and powerful than you are. These are real people who are having their identities threatened by noobs like yourselves with half-baked, idiotic life philosophies and authoritarian power-trips. Grow up and try to think with some maturity. And Fae, you might should reflect on the criticism coming your way. If the Wikimedia UK never gains much credibility, it will be in a large part because of your continuously childish actions and comments in Wikipedia. Take some accountability and grow up, please. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• If this is meant to be satirical, it's hilarious. If it isn't...those opposing are unmitigated kettles. And some might only be teacups. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• As one of the "unmitigated jackasses", I would like to ask how deleting a perfectly good biography on IDONTLIKEIT grounds would help Wikipedia. The only people who would benefit would be self-obsessed celebrities, politicians and the like, who want people to read only their personal websites and other PR guff.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • As one of the "unmitigated jennyasses" (I'm female), I agree with ianmacm's comments. I have no interest in Hawkins whatsoever, but what gets me is the power trips these minor celebs get off on. We are an encyclopedia, a vehicle to impart knowledge not a blog set up to cater to the whims and caprices of public figures. If we start by deleting articles upon the subject's request, what will be next, remove unflattering photos, censor details of the critical reception his of her last film received, and so on.....Public figures need to accept the responsibilities along with the perks of being a "star", and this means letting photographers snap your photo, signing autographs for fans, and not moaning about having an article in Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Rather doubt that name calling and talking about people's mothers, shows any strength in the argument or reflects well on it. It certainly, doesn't make it reasonable. Perhaps, if exclamation points were added or caps. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. - Start an RfC. Don't forget to pack your warm undies, because it's gonna snow really hard... Carrite (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Subheader

• There's a simple bottom line here: in a free country, individuals do not have the right to demand not to be written about. Can you imagine, say, someone writing to the New York Times and asking for all their coverage of that person to be scrubbed simply because they don't want the NYT to write about them any more? Now, even though we have a right to write about anyone, as Wikipedians we voluntarily set limits on our ability to do so in practice: we have a responsibility to not intrude on non-public figures, and not to intrude unduly on public figures, but that's as far as our responsibility goes. If we've satisfied those responsibilities then we've done what we need to do. If a BLP is neutral, fair, reliably sourced and the subject is notable, then there are no good grounds to demand its deletion. Don't forget we've been here before with people who are clearly notable. Prioryman (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  Bit of a difference between amateur busybody volunteers (i.e. you) and a credentialed actually-identifiable news columnist (i.e. Roger Cohen), in that the latter stakes his reputation and career on getting the job done right. If Mr. Cohen screws up, he is suspended, fined, and or/fired. You? You pick a new name and come back. "Accountability" is the word of the day here, and at the end of the day, this project has little of it regarding BLP editing. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  Nonsense. If anything I'm more accountable than Roger Cohen and I'm held to much higher standards by my peers. Newspaper columnists and regular journalists can and do write any nonsense they like without any sourcing whatsoever. They can and do assassinate people's reputations in the most extreme terms without any consequences. Their victims don't even get a right of reply. In most cases egregious mistakes are never corrected and the only recourse victims have is to sue for libel, which they rarely pursue because of the cost and risks involved. The fact is that your "credentialed actually-identifiable news columnists" screw up all the time, often deliberately if they are pursuing an ideological agenda, and they are almost never "suspended, fined, and/or fired". When was the last time Fox News fired anyone for making false claims about the Obama administration? That's the reality of the situation: your scenario is almost entirely fantasy, and frankly it makes it seem that you know very little about how the media actually works. Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  Bizarre. Even a tabloid writer would know not to write this. Absolute basics of journalism. JN466 19:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  Except that it appears to be sourced to what amounts to a tabloid website: [6] via [7]. So it seems that a "tabloid" writer actually did write it. That rather destroys the point you were making, doesn't it? Prioryman (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, neither of the sources seem to take a position on what actually happened or didn't happen, whereas WP uses its own voice to say what happened. We missed out the word "allegedly" basically. But no proposal short of only allowing qualified, experienced journalists to write for WP is going to prevent that sort of thing. Formerip (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Formerip has it right. With respect, Prioryman, the fact that you can't see something as obvious as that rather undermines your claim to understand journalism better than Tarc. Beyond the missing "allegedly", one might raise questions of due weight (what weight do untested allegations of this sort have in a biography of a living person?) , and add that one source devoted a lot of space to George Clooney's statement that he was with Gerber the entire time and "this event never happened", while the other linked to the full story on TMZ, which quoted Gerber's reps as saying, "These allegations were previously investigated and shown to be baseless ... This lawsuit has no merit." None of that was reflected in the article. And as far as I can tell, nothing was ever heard of that lawsuit again, which if anything makes it less likely that the allegations were true to begin with. Even at the time this was entered, two years had passed, and the conscientious thing would have been to look for any further coverage. Absence of such coverage should have set off an alarm bell. As it is, Wikipedia said for more than a year, as a statement of fact in an encyclopedia, that Gerber sexually harassed waitresses. I am not a lawyer, but under the circumstances, I'd say that's defamation. --JN466 14:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to highlight the "when was the last time Fox News fired anyone for making false claims about the Obama administration?" bit for being so amusing, though I'm sure the amusement was not intentional. Political spin is not a "lie", otherwise we can turn around and ask why wasn't anyone at CNN or HuffPo fired for lying about George Bush for 8 years. The point remains is that we have on this project a culture of "I can write about anyone I want" with impunity, and I think that has to change. Maybe by the time you're on your 5th or 6th account name, we'll see some progress. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not "about" accountability, in any event. It's about accuracy and fairness. Accountability is one of various possible means to that end but, in the context of Wikipedia, it isn't the most effective means and could even be counter-productive. If we were to go to the extreme where "accountable" is simplistically translated as "identifiable", then it comes at an unbearable cost. Formerip (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just so. Rush Limbaugh is a "credentialed actually-identifiable" individual, as Tarc puts it. That has no bearing on whether his output is accurate or fair. Besides which, I find it rather ironic that a non-credentialed, non-actually identifiable individual is complaining about others being non-credentialed, non-actually identifiable... Prioryman (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The diffeirence between you and I is that I am not the one argjuing to preserve slander masquerading as a Wikipedia Bio. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is the one? Formerip (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is unlikely that any nonsense added to a high profile BLP article will last for very long, and it is often reverted within a few minutes. The real risk is in minor league BLPs, where the material could go for much longer before being spotted and removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Minor league BLPs are only part of the story. Don't forget that BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia - article talk pages, user pages, templates, etc. Any one of those could potentially be used to add poor-quality or defamatory content about a living individual. That's one of the reasons why I tend to get impatient about BLP zealotry; the fact is that any website with user-generated content, whether it's Wikipedia, Flickr, Facebook, or whatever, has the same issue. It's an inherent problem with user-generated websites. I think we are probably better than most at spotting and dealing with abuse, thanks to watchlists, recent changes monitoring, strong policy enforcement etc, but ultimately it's an issue that can only be managed - it can never be eliminated. Prioryman (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The comparison to Flickr or Facebook misses the mark. Facebook, Flickr and so forth do not pretend to be an encyclopedia, and that makes a difference in law. There is a difference between individuals expressing opinions on an Internet forum, and making statements of fact in what intends to be the world's encyclopedia. And this is particularly so in the articles themselves.

Minor league BLPs are a big part of the story. Again, take another example: Deborah Orr. Her biography is currently a huge WP:Coatrack. Looking at the history, it seem like it has rarely been anything else: [8], [9]. This is WP:ADAM at its best: 25% of her biography about the fact that she said "Fuck" on television? Gross incompetence on display: [10], echoing the librarian porn star. How about this unsourced bit of rubbish? Or about this? The one bit of vandalism Wikipedia promptly removed was this. JN466 13:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There's definitely a coatrack problem with that article. Why haven't you done anything about that? Formerip (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is the classic "we have our blinders on" response whenever someone points out a problem on this project; the WP:SOFIXIT Defense. Do you not see that the corollary of WP:SOBREAKIT is equally in play here, and the fact that it is is itself what is damaging to BLPs? Tarc (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't my point at all. My point was that all this drama and concern looks like a bit fraudulent if you see a huge dollop of obviously unfair and undue content in someone's bio and you can't be bothered to take 5 seconds to put it right (but you can be bothered to go through the history to see what else you can find). Formerip (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an utterly bizarre response. The problem is being pointed out as an example of a systematic problem. Taking 5 seconds to fix this particular instance would not fix the systematic problem. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, but it would fix the problem with the article. It seems to be a bit inconsistent to gnash and moan all over WP about a problem then, when you see an example of it, take the trouble to rifle through the history and post a bit more gnashing and moaning about it, but leave the article as it was. Formerip (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There are several problems with that. One, if I do it, then that creates the impression, "Oh, the Wikipedia system works. Things are taking care of themselves." It most definitely does not, and people "fixing" articles when they come up for scrutiny, while useful in itself, does not fix the systemic problem. Second, I would like to get some other editors actively involved in the BLP problem. If I say, "Oy, there was a problem with that there article, but I've fixed it", nobody but me has to lift a finger, and everyone but me can continue their internal dialogue of how great Wikipedia is. Thirdly, this way, by the time whoever it is who has got something against Orr checks his watchlist, they won't be starting a fight with me over why someone "deleted sourced material". Lastly, I've been in touch with the subject, and unlike Hawkins she couldn't care less about her Wikipedia biography. So there was only Wikipedia's reputation to defend here, and I am no longer prepared to go out of my way to do that unless Wikipedia pulls its finger out a bit and shows evidence of an intent to have a reputation worth defending. JN466 23:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The solution to the problem I would like to see does not involve me running after arseholes not nice or vindictive people to clean up the turds messes> they have dropped into made in biographies. People have been doing such clean-up work for years, at an enormous cost of time and energy, and the only effect it has had has been to give this rotten system of writing biographies a veneer of respectability. If you like the present system of writing biographies so much, you clean it up. I can send you a regularly updated list of biographies someone has dumped on. --JN466 14:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Jayen, the world remains anxious to hear about the solution to the problem you would like to see. Once again, quit jumping up and down like a concussed baboon and get on with it. Formerip (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayen466, calling Wikipedians arseholes rather undermines any point you might have been trying to make here. I doubt anyone will bother wading through your polemic when you choose to be this crude. --Fæ (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I read it as a metaphor which he then expanded on, rather than as an attack on any Wikipedians ingeneral. And, yes, some folks do place entirely improper edits into BLPs, occasionally quite deliberately. See User:Collect/BLP for some of the reasons given by a single former Wikipedia editor: It's a real exposé, in the classic sense. If the report were bogus, X would have sued TMZ loooong ago. Excluding it is simply censorship, plain and simple, Wikipedia is not censored, and the data I am adding is allowable., The only person who has done any research here on X is ME! The rest of you are either X's gophers, or X fanboyz, or net-nannies brought here by Collect's tattle-taling on the noticeboards (and whose chief contribution to the debate has been to finger wag and head shake)., If it were lies, the litigious X would have sued them sooner than you could say "Abracadabra!", y has a campaign afoot to purge this page of any taint of critical content, that's why. G*ddamned conservatives trying to sanitize the wikipedia, ruining it in the process and so on. Showing the singleminded purpose of such editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say anxious is the right word, as I've proposed the same possible solutions three or four times now: 1. Introduce flagged revisions for all minor BLPs, and make the reviewer right one that has to be earned, and can be lost. 2. Alternatively, make BLP editing a separate user right. 3. Alternatively, move minor BLPs to a separate project like Commons, possibly with registered editing. 4. Give minor biograpical subjects an opt-out whenever our process has broken down. 5. Fund an independent watchdog who can adjudicate and fine. Fæ, I am saying what I am saying on a talk page. "Wikipedians", on the other hand (and let's just remember that anyone in the world with a defamatory intent can become a "Wikipedian" in one minute), do such things as defaming living people as sexual harassers, and spending 25% of their biographies on the fact that they once said "Fuck" on television, on the number one Google link for their names. If this sets up some sort of equality in your mind, whereby the latter problem pops out of existence due to the language I have used to describe it, that is up to you. I'll redact though, just in case it helps you contemplate the problem, and possible ways forward. --JN466 14:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Anxious is the right word when you type it with heavy sarcasm.

You know very well, though, that throwing a few half-baked ideas to the wind in the middle of a thread on this page is not going to get the baby bathed. Neither is another pointless message about a bio that once had the word "willy" in it.

FWIW, one of the ideas you list (the first one) is not completely daft and it will inevitably happen before too long in some form (although it will be PC not FR). I think it would be useful if you had a think about how you might avoid impeding that process by being more coherent and less frantic. Formerip (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

To illustrate FormerIP's point: I once spent a long week in court in a drugs related trial, the highlight of which was one of the witnesses giving testimony that included the word "fuck", once. In the judge's summary, he managed to say "fuck" twice as a result. Watching the elderly judge enjoy himself so much at finding an excuse to swear in court, not only creeped me out, but made most of the jury lose track of whatever point he was trying to make. I think you might be making the same tactical error. --Fæ (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Either Wikipedia has BLP articles or it does not; deleting articles on request would be a dream come true for celebrities and politicians who did not want certain things written about them. WP:ADAM is a big problem in the minor league BLPs, and there should be more aggressive tagging for cleanup and deletion where this is happening.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. 'Cleanup and deletion' shouldn't be necessary. We need to be much more strict about BLP notability criteria in the first place. If we limited such articles to people who are actually worthy of an encyclopaedic entry, it would be a darned sight easier to keep the crap out of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, there would need to be much higher standards set for BLP notability. There is little point in requiring consensus in deletion debates, because this is well nigh impossible in some cases.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We need a much higher standard in BLP notability. I've just said that. Much higher... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That's one I forgot to mention above. As I said on WikiEN-l, if we have biographies where we either end up with hatchet jobs or infomercials, because nobody neutral can be BOTHERED to write about these obscure people, then I think it would indeed be better not to have "biographies" like that at all. We need to restrict ourselves to biographies that are encyclopedically relevant, so that articles get tended and watched by more people than just the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them. Especially so given that core editor numbers relative to the number of biograpies we have have been in steady decline. JN466 15:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, Toolserver will only say if an article has more than 30 watchers. For BLP articles, I would like to see a more precise figure, and if it is fewer than 15 watchers, alarm bells should ring.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If it is technically possible to produce a list of BLPs watched by less than a given number of people – say, less than 15 – having such a list would be worthwhile. --JN466 23:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Study

It is undoubtedly true that WP BLP's have misinformation, just as it is true that most anything one reads contains misinformation. Is WP worse, better or the same? A study should be done. Inviting all academics, in conjunction perhaps with those "truth busting" media watchdogs to have a go. If no one steps forward the Foundation could, although not as ideal. I am less than thrilled, however, with a less systematic analysis by individual pedians. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

With over 3 million articles, this might be difficult. Possible signs of trouble for BLPs that can be flagged automatically by a bot are:

1. Low view count.
2. Low number of page watchers.
3. Low number of edits.
4. A high percentage of edits by the same editor or IP edits.

At the moment, most of the evidence in this area is anecdotal. There are bound to be some BLP articles in a poor state of repair at any given time, and this is why raising the bar for BLP notability would help.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What we do know is that at any time, an unknown percentage of Wikipedia biographies of living persons contains serious problems. This is, after all, why the Wikimedia Foundation so jealously guards its Section 230 safe harbor protection, and refuses to intervene in management of site content. The Foundation thinks that if it were to assume legal responsibility for this site's content, it would be sued out of existence. I think this in itself indicates that the problems are on a somewhat different scale than those there might be with professional media companies, who after all do take responsibility for their content, and survive.

At the same time, of course, the Wikimedia Foundation asserts that this content, which is so riddled with problems that it does not want to assume legal responsibility for it, serves a public benefit. There is something profoundly incongruous about this.

Yes, a study would be useful, though it will require a considerable investment in time and effort. Generally speaking, as a site intended to be an enyclopedia (i.e. to present fact rather than contributor opinion), to serve the public benefit, and the number one Google link for anyone's name, Wikipedia cannot rightfully compare its content to discussion contributions in obscure online forums. To be of demonstrable benefit to the public, Wikipedia biographies of members of that public should measure up to a certain standard, and have safeguards against abuse. JN466 16:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a lot of assuming, including: 1)there is actionable privacy infringement or defamation occurring; 2)its not being removed, or 3) the foundation/system does not respond to complaints. Anecdote does not supply the basis for those assumptions and it's at least questionable they are true. For example, if it is true that the pedia article is "high profile" about the person, it is almost certain it has gotten attention from an interested observer, who is interested in it being fair or at least innocuous. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(1) If there isn't, why is the Wikimedia Foundation so scared to adopt a publisher's responsibility? By the way, an example was given above. For an ongoing court case, see [11]. Incidentally, people sourcing content directly to court documents (which occurred in the case this suit is about) is a regular occurrence in Wikipedia. While it's not a legally actionable privacy violation, it has long been forbidden by BLP policy. But there is clearly no requirement on anyone to read the BLP policy before they start editing. I think that ought to change. Again, pending changes or a separate user right for BLP editing would achieve that. Otherwise, how serious are we about BLP policy if we say we have one, and it is very important, but no one is required to read it before they start editing BLPs? 2) Hari's vile stuff stayed in articles for weeks. Example: [12]. The Gerber example linked above was in the article for more than a year. 3) The Foundation's response to complaints is patchy. It can take weeks before a complainant receives a response. It's not just me who's saying that; one of our arbitrators said the same thing a few weeks ago: "I've seen this happen on OTRS time and time again: real tickets about unbalanced articles do go unanswered for weeks." --JN466 23:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

1) I would gather that the Foundation has a fiduciary duty to limit its liability, in every way allowed by law. 1), 2) and 3) Just so, anecdotes have power but they are not systematic evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we would necessarily need academics or WMF to do the type of study suggested. It would really be a particularly complicated study to undertake. If a group of editors was willing to dedicate even a fairly small amount of time and work to a shared protocol, a decent dataset could be pulled together quite quickly. Just a suggestion, but I'd be willing to take part if others are. Formerip (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Equally radical counter-proposal (only a little tongue-in-cheek)

I propose that BLP articles may only be edited by established editors that have a significant number of mainspace edits, say 1000. There will still be disputes but they will, hopefully, be substantive disputes. Let the n00bs edit other articles, there is plenty of other editing to be done. --Lyncs (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if this might actually make the problem worse. It would get rid of obvious vandalism, but are editors with 1,000 edits always competent in terms of following policy? What we would lose is the gnoming and casual editing which is really our first line of defence at the moment (more of it improves articles than degrades them). If we implemented this tomorrow, I think it would just slow the process of improving biographical articles. Formerip (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are editors with tens of thousands of edits who know BLP policy backwards and break it, knowingly and intentionally. And there are newbies who write wonderful biographies. --JN466 23:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Say it ain't so, Joe --Lyncs (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' Email Address

I edited Jimbo Wales' user page because I thought that his email address was too far from where it first mentions his email, especially when viewed on a mobile phone. It was reverted by Bwilkins on the grounds that email addresses should only show up once per page. I accept this point of view but would it not be better for the address to appear where it is first mentioned. i.e. If your press inquiry is strictly regarding Wikipedia or another Wikimedia project, you can contact me directly by e-mail at jimbo at jwaleswikia.com or you can call the Foundation office and speak to our communications person, Jay, at +1 (415) 839-6885.

If it is regarded by the community that an email address should only appear once per page can someone explain to me why it is OK that Topher's email address is mentioned twice in the same paragraph and Jimbo's only once on the whole page.

Thanks, Paul Bates 1973 (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a new editor and I have been reading the Wikipedia Policies. I used BRD. I was bold, I edited Jimbo Wales' User Page, It was reverted. Now I am discussing it. I understand that Bwilkins has a different point of view than me. He seems to be a highly experienced and respected editor, but according to what I have read, his view holds no more weight than mine. I haven't been convinced by his argument that the email address is in the right place because it should only appear once. If anyone has any comments that would help please make them, I intend to re-edit the page if nobody objects. As I said I am new so if I am going about this the wrong way then please feel free to give me advice. Paul Bates 1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

BRD refers to articles, not other users' userpages. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You ARE going about it the wrong way. WE are here to collaborate on enhancing an Encyclopedia...not create arguments over the most minor of details or whose words carry more weight. Do some work around the place before you start re-arranging the pictures. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not re-arranging pictures. I don't know where you got that idea from. I am just saying that the email address on this page could be better placed, and so far only Bwilkings has expressed a difference of opinion. I would not normally edit a user’s page but the text on this page actively encourages it. I am beginning to suspect that actually it is not possible to make a change for the better because any edit will be just reverted no matter what. If you do not think this subject is worthy of discussion then just don’t get involved. If anyone has an intelligent reason for why the email address is better left where it is then let’s discuss it, otherwise, if no one really cares where the email address is placed other than me, I’ll edit it. Paul Bates 1973 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not re-arranging pictures.

It's an idiom. A more familiar phrase might be "Rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic sinks." In other words, don't fuss over the minor details when there are big things that need fixing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm mystified why we're giving this new editor a hard time for doing what Jimbo's user page, and our welcome templates, and everything else tell him he should do. I mean, this is evidently a new editor who is actually following WP:BRD, we should be pleasantly surprised and thankful, not snotty. Paul, I suggest you not add the email address back until it's clear people agree, as that could cause an even bigger kerfluffle. But for what it's worth, I actually think it was a good edit. And it's depressing to see people who think it is worth their time to belittle you for doing something they don't think is worth your time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Floquenbeam, I will follow your advice and not change the edit until a consensus is reached. The problem is no one wants to discuss the actual issue I raise. I love using Wikipedia as a reader and thought I could help as an editor. I guess I am not the only new editor who would turn to the founder’s page first. I read with amazement as he actually encouraged me to edit his own user page. I thought the page would be perfect and no actual problem would exist. I then encountered what I conceived as a problem, I read the sentence “Please contact me by email” but no email was presented. It was not until I got to the bottom of the page that I found an email address. I then looked at the page on my computer rather than on my phone and saw that the problem wasn’t quite as obvious when viewed on a full size computer screen, so perhaps no one else had noticed. I thought to myself, “I better not change Jimmy Wales’ user page until I understand a bit more about how this community works”. I spent a whole day reading policies and essays and came to the conclusion that I should make a bold edit and see what happens. I did this and as expected it was reverted. I then expected someone with a lot more knowledge to explain why my edit was not correct. Instead I am treated like some sort of idiot. Firstly “Strange Passerby” tells me BRD doesn’t apply to user pages even though the user page I edited actively encourages I be bold and edit it. Then “Buster Seven” tells me not to re-arrange pictures and then “The hand that feeds you” has a go at me because I am not aware that the phrase “re-arranging the pictures” actually has nothing to do with pictures. I am told I should not fuss over small details when there are big things that need fixing. Who decides what is a big thing and what a small thing is, obviously not me. Perhaps we aren’t all equal here after all. I must say that I was not expecting this. I was expecting a discussion about the issue I raised. I am sorry to have bothered you all, It is obvious that despite what the ideals of the founder of this amazing website are, some of the active editors of it don’t share those same ideals. Please forgive me for my intrusion into your world. Paul Bates 1973 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Some reflection would show that while it would be great to discuss the issue raised here, in practice there are 3 million pages and there is no way a reasonable discussion can be held on every minor difference of opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

One of my primary beliefs is that is that a userpage for the most part belongs to the user. Although Jimbo does say "go ahead and edit" his, it's still setup for the most part how he wants it.

In articles, we remove duplicate wikilinks, etc, I saw the addition of a second e-mail address as similar. The new addition was a mere couple of lines away from the existing one, when viewed on the screen.

It is really outside the scope of any area of Wikipedia to discuss what does or does not belong on someone's personal userpage - unless of course it meets specific deletion/removal criteria. Barring a problem, there's no need to discuss changes to a userpage - it's their business. You can't start a discussion that would force an extra e-mail address or anything.

I do not believe that I bit the new editor whatsoever. I do believe that they are not quite aware of WP:UP, or where WP:BRD is used. Indeed, I welcome the editor to the fold ... we have millions of articles that need help - userpage will generally help themselves. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Paul, I'm pretty much in agreement with Floq here. WikiLife can be hard for newbies! (And for oldies, too.) Sometimes rules seem to be about individual interpretation, and sometimes each of us interprets things slightly differently, and we can't all be right! We often have disagreements amongst ourselves, though the idea is to try and disagree agreeably. But (and this is a big "but") we're all also human beings (most of the time, lol!), and we have our good days, and our bad days, and our snitty moments, and sometimes too much on our plates both here in WikiLand and also in real life. Not one of us is perfect. Most of us try to be nice most of the time. Most of us hate it if we hurt someone unintentionally (though, as with any community, there's a small proportion who intentionally dish out hurt ... but it is a small proportion). Take heart, and remember always that humans are imperfect creatures. We're all fallible. Pesky (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I really didn't want to comment further here, but realize I was unclear and should clarify: I don't think BWilkins did anything wrong here; he disagreed with the edit, reverted, explained why politely in the edit summary, and welcomed the new editor. I'm more disappointed with the response the new editor got here on this page. But any further comments I have I'll make at his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Paul's edit is consistent with the format of the paragraph, i.e. name at..., name at.... I redid the edit. I see no problem with the repeated email later. -Lyncs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC).

• I have absolutely no problems with Bwilkins, like I said previously; he seems like an experienced and respected editor. What I didn’t like were some of the comments made in discussion after the edit was reverted. I may be wrong but I would think the place to talk about changes to a user’s page would be the user’s talk page. I would be quite happy to go along with the consensus view even if it differed from my own. From my perspective it seemed that some editors just wanted to knock me down rather than make any positive comments. I am aware that there are a lot of things that need doing but I thought I would start with something simple. Anyway someone else has re-made the edit now, so unless someone objects to the change and wants to discuss the matter further let’s call the matter closed. Paul Bates 1973 (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What the heck is going on with the speedy deletions of these two articles within five minutes?

Didn't even give me fifteen minutes to see and to explain why these two articles: William Mullins (Mayflower Pilgrim) (Pilgrim added later) and Edward Tilley (Mayflower Pilgrim) should not be deleted.

Who deletes an article on a Mayflower Pilgrim and Mayflower Compact signer.

They are also mentioned in three other Wikipedia articles:

• Mayflower Compact scholars state it is the first Constitution
• Mayflower Passenger List
• Mayflower passengers who died in the winter of 1620–1621

The same is true for the second article. Then HE CHANGES HIS MIND AND summarily changed the name WITHOUT DISCUSSION taking off the (Mayflower Pilgrim) in the title which clearly identifies them with the many other Mayflower Pilgrim articles. Why bother to put the contested page up if they are not even going to give an editor or editors a chance to reply. What a farce! Does he know nothing of American History. Did he never hear of the Mayflower or the Mayflower Compact, both of which make both men NOTABLE. and under what rationale does he change the title which clearly identifies who the men are and what make them notable in American History not to mention that it joins all Mayflower Pilgrims articles together.

Please check the timestamps. Mugginsx (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

He didn't delete either article, he moved them both to a location consistent with our article naming policy, since no disambiguation is required here there in no need for (Mayflower Pilgrim) in the title Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Communication is a wonderful thing that helps people understand why. I'm not sure how old these articles are/were, but if they are brand new, RHaworth ought to have explained his actions briefly to the author. -- Avanu (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

One is new and the other has been edited and expanded from a stub today. He does not have the right to change these articles without consensus and arbitrarily. There was no request, there was no discussion, there was no consensus.He just didn't like it. It is important in American History and to Americans. Perhaps not to him, I do not know. It is often researched by students, etc. Mugginsx (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

'How about if we take the Royalty articles or Aristocrats Earls etc., and take off their titles on all their articles? Some of which I edited on. I bet that would cause some concern to him and every European. IT WOULD NOT BE TOLERATED Mugginsx (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

He does not have the right to change these articles without consensus and arbitrarily. Er... Right under every edit box is the disclaimer: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• William Mullins
• Edward Tilley

Both of the articles appear to be right where they belong. As said above, there is no need for disambiguation in either title. If any aristocrats or earls are being unnecessarily disambiguated, I'd expect that it would be tolerated...encouraged even to fix them. --Onorem♠Dil 22:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't give me that. I have been here too long to swallow that. How about THE EARLS OF CHESTER - Why don't we just leave their name on the title of the article and TAKE OFF THEIR TITLES AND LET EVERYONE FIGURE OUT WHO THEY ARE. How long would that rationale last aye?Mugginsx (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

'Mayflower Passenger' isn't a title. It is a description. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Mugginsx you need to relax. Standard article naming rules have been applied here, it has nothing to do with any kind of prejudice or anything of the sort. The articles have been moved to the name of the subject, the earl of Chester is called the earl of Chester, nobody called these pilgrims "William Mayflower Passenger". We only include an explanation of who the subject is when there is someone different with the same name, not for every single article. Stop being so over-dramatic--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I will try to calm down but tell me: who is Hugh d'Avranches. OK, so many editors here know but what about the average reader? HE DOES NOT KNOW he is an Earl of Chester. These Pilgrims are less known individually and as a group to research I and others believe that the title would help that cause just as the title of important Europeans are better known for their titles. I think it a fair analogy. Mugginsx (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a completely wrong analogy, as Andy says Earl, lord etc are that persons title, "mayfair passenger" is nobodys title. Do you not realise that if someone is trying to find out about one of these passengers on wikipedia, when they search for them they will type "William Mullins", not "William Mullins (Mayflower Passenger)". And in most cases people will find the article through the mayfair article anyway--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, First he put them up for speedy deletion and before I could finish explaining why they should NOT be deleted, he changed the title and moved them with just the persons name WITHOUT the title i.e., identifying them as Mayflower Pilgrims (I said passengers before, I apologize). These people are little know except as a group and I and others thought that to identify them all in this manner would be better for researchers just the way TITLES are used in say the Earl of Chester who no American (unless a Wiki editor maybe) would know his name as Hugh d'Avranches. That is I think a fair analogy to an American. I respect you and will go with your opinion but I think I am correct in my strategy for students and researchers. Mugginsx (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Now he is saying he never put them up for speedy deletion? I saw the template and answered the questions. It was on both. Then he redirected them Mugginsx (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not in the history. If you're going to make accusations up... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been here since 2008 and I know what I saw. It is no longer there. I cannot explain, can you? Anyway, I can't compete with an administrator. I don't have the tools nor the power. The only power I have here is my integrity. Also, it was Mayflower Pilgrim not Mayflower Passenger, I mispoke earlier here. And yes, they were known as Pilgrims, that is their title. I have nothing more to say. Mugginsx (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I can explain some of it. Someone tagged Talk:William Mullins for deletion as a testpage [13]. Mugginsx created the page with only a full stop on it (by accident I suppose). RHaworth removed the speedy. Incidentally, Mugginsx, you moved Tilley from Edward Tilley, so RHaworth was only reverting your BOLD but unnecessary move. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much Elen. I am not quite sure what you mean about Edward - both names had the titles. It shows that way still on my "favorites bar" but anyway doesn't matter now but thanks for your astute observation.Mugginsx (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

[14] <-- This is you Mugginsx moved page Edward Tilley to Edward Tilley (Mayflower Pilgrim): aligned with many other Mayflower Pilgrim articles. Also, many other Tilly articles will be much easier to find with title. RHaworth reverted the move in this case. He didn't make the move. That's all I was saying. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I changed the page title to Edward Tilley adding the title (Mayflower Pilgrim). I also changed John Tilley at [[15]]. Thanks for finding the "testpage deletion" I never heard of either a test page deletion or a full stop page creation. I will try to find out what both mean and really, thanks again. Mugginsx (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Testpage thingy was weird. Just wanted you to know you weren't imagining seeing a speedy template somewhere in the mix. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for going the extra step and believing in an editor. That makes me feel very humble. Mugginsx (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

cake

Commander v99 (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Commander v99 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

La censura de algunos bibliotecarios

Estimado Sr.

He sufrido la censura de varios bibliotearios por mi artículo D. Manuel Serrano Cebrian. Un ilustre locutor español galardonado con 3 remios Ondas (Máximo reconocimiento en el panorama de la radiodifudión española). Su proceder es el de un disco rayado: Fuentes no fiables, promocional y partidista. Después de 7 meses de trabajo de campo en tan sólo unos minutos han realizado un borrado rápido y por ello quisiera exponerle lo siguiente: Primero: Es triste que todo un trabajo sea el mío o el de otra persona, tenga que pasar por el criterio antojadizo de algunos bobliotecarios que creen suya esta enciclopedia libre. Segundo: Algunos de ellos actúan como jueces censurando a su libre criterio, sin preocuparles que detrás de ese artículo hay un trabajo realizado con honestidad. Tercero: La libertad de información y la de aportar conocimientos se vé gravemente peligrada por la figura de los bibliotecarios. Bloqueando y borrando artículos de usuarios altamente especializados sobre un tema. Si se da cuenta Sr. fundador la creación de artículos es un derecho que se reservan para ellos, impidiendo que otros usuarios puedan publicar artículos según su criterio. Puede usted meterse en la página de discusión de alguno de ellos y observará la forma en que tratan a los usuarios, por lo menos en el idioma español y encima si nos quejamos somos bloqueados o hemos sido ofensivos. También puede consultar el la red las quejas de muchos usuarios que ponen en entredicho la figura privilegiada del bibliotecario. Recurro a usted en nombre de muchos usuarios para que salvaguarde la libertad de esta enciclopedia, a la que yo aporto desinterasadamente dinero y mis humildes conocimientos, y la proteja de un grupo de usuarios con privilegios que se está apoderando de ella.

Atentemente Sedenkare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.13.236.182 (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Google translation, which feel free to clean up. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I have suffered censorship of several administrators of my article D. Serrano Manuel Cebrian. An illustrious Spanish speaker remios awarded 3 Waves (Maximum recognition in the panorama of Spanish radiodifudión). His demeanor is that of a broken record unreliable sources, promotional and partisan. After 7 months of field work in just a few minutes did a quick erase and so would expose the following: First: It is sad that all work be mine or someone else, have to go through the whimsical approach some who believe they should censor this free encyclopedia. Second: Some of them act as judges censoring its discretion, without worrying that behind this article is a work honestly. Third: The freedom to provide information and knowledge is severely endangered by the figure of Administrators. Blocking and deleting users highly specialized articles on a topic. If you find Mr. founding the creation of articles is a right reserved for them, preventing other users to publish articles at their discretion. Can you get into the discussion page for any of them and watch how they treat users, at least in Spanish and over if we complain we are blocked or have been offensive. You can also check the network with complaints of many users who call into question the privileged figure of the librarian [censor/administrator?]. I appeal to you on behalf of many users to safeguard the freedom of this encyclopedia, to which I contribute my humble desinterasadamente money and knowledge, and protect a group of privileged users that it is taking over.

The back-story seems to be the deletion of an article about a 1970s radio broadcaster. Some sources may have been provided, but were not considered reliable. Google returns nothing but social networking sites. The es admin involved in this speaks some English, according to their Babel boxes: es:Usuario Discusión:Bernard. Formerip (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the said es admin should be notified about this appeal if Jimbo is interested in this matter. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to let them know about this discussion, but the userpage is semied and I am not autoconfirmed. Formerip (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose es:Wikipedia:Café/Portal/Archivo/Noticias/Actual (WP:village pump/news) would be a proper place to announce. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Too much oxygen, maybe? My impression is that there isn't really much to discuss. es.wp seems to have determined that a particular article fails the equivalent of GNG. Jimbo or en.wp can't really do much about that or about the whether the matter was handled fairly, IMO. Formerip (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note on the talkpage of another involved user and asked them to also let Bernard know. Formerip (talk)

I've offered to this user replace the deleted text in a subpage so he could check there and make the necessary improvements with assistance. The complainant seems to assume that "Free Encyclopedia" means that anyone can publish content at will and without complying with policies of verifiability and neutrality. He mentioned references in his claims, but does not put them in the article (or don´t know how, but neither has the necessary attitude for someone helps he): He starts accusing we of censorship and arbitrary, but the truth is that the text doesn´t meet minimal necessary conditions.--Antur (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've put a message in (probably quite bad) Spanish on the user's en and es talkpages advising them that Jimbo rarely intervenes in disputes outside en.wp and that they should instead consider the equivalents of DRV or apopt-a-user/help that are available within Spanish Wikipedia. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Suppression of content about fringe ideas

I have become concerned recently about the way a number of people in Wikipedia including some administrators are taking WP:FRINGE to mean they should delete or completely obliterate the contents of fringe theory articles or just include refutations. This has affected quite a number of articles, the latest I noticed this being done to is Aquatic ape hypothesis with the comment 'removing most of the specific claims and rebuttals leaving only general theoretical issues,' and this is defended at WP:FTN#Aquatic ape hypothesis Try if you will to find in that article a single thing the hypothesis was supposed to explain. Then have a look at Conservapedia Aquatic Ape, theyu actually say in three short paragraphs more that's actually relevant about it then we do in a great big article which just says lods of people disagree with it. RationalWiki has a far better article than us at Aquatic ape hypothesis. There is something going very badly wrong I think that we should go around censoring and deleting anything at all fringe to such an extent that both Conservapedia and RationalWiki do a better job than us? Or am I wrong and Wikipedia really is about presenting only correct thought? Dmcq (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The talk page section for the removal is here Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#Hypothesis_material. In its current form there were significant issues with synthesis in the material and the extremely poor style. Synthesis issues caused the article to be bumped down recently Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis/Archive_4#Assessment_details. A back and forth between fringe suggestions and mainstream response is a terrible style. It seems the material would need to be fundamentally re-written to be encylopedic. You were asked for suggestions at WP:FTN but you declined [16]. A description of the hypothesis is provided here Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#The_hypothesis. So what exactly is the issue? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

People can follow those links and judge for themselves. Here's a diff too to the state before 'bumping' and the current state. And bad style is not a reason to gut all the content except general criticisms from an article. You said at FTN it still described the hypothesis. Compared it to the Conservapedia three tiny paragraph article, that one outlines what the hypothesis was trying to explain. Wikipedia's article never goes anywhere near saying what it was in aid of. Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Do people agree that "Fringe theories should be suppressed"?[17] Dmcq (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And to ask the opposite - should fringe theories be explored and explained with focus on every tiny detail and new argument thought up by a proponent? How much detail should an idea never embraced by the mainstream get? Or should we focus mainly on why the mainstream has never accepted the theory? Should the moon landing hoax page list every reason why proponents think the moon landing was faked? Should creationism list all the alleged flaws of the theory of evolution? When most experts in the relevant discipline don't think a theory is worth discussing, should we do it for them, or is that soapboxing? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying those articles should be gutted too? Dmcq (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the material removed from the Aquatic ape hypothesis article was that a lot of it wasn't from the 'hypothesis' as originally proposed at all - it was a collection of 'supporting arguments' subsequently raised by proponents - and there is no real evidence that these arguments are particularly significant in themselves - or indeed, that they have ever been gathered together anywhere but Wikipedia: it was synthesis. Add to that the ongoing problem with proponents of a different theory trying to plug a book on their version, and the whole thing gets messy. A ragbag collection of vaguely-on-topic arguments and rebuttals is hardly encyclopaedic material... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this hits the nail on the head, and it sounds very similar to the case of Astrology. Clearly, fringe science has to be described in articles about fringe science. But some editors seem to go further and take a view that, if the article is about the thing, then even the most obscure proponents of the thing should be given generous airtime and their arguments given as much weight as those of the mainstream, or more. A confused interpretation of NPOV. Formerip (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And that "Clearly, fringe science has to be described in articles about fringe science" is what I want. Not to go describing obscure details or anything like that but ensure a person who reads it has a good idea of what the article is about. Here we just have a whole load of of cites to people saying they don't think much of it or it isn't mainstream without explaining what 'it' is. What's done is not a reasonable interpretation of WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE. Dmcq (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, but, without reproducing the whole talkpage history, how does the Acquatic Ape article fall down, in your view? Formerip (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The AAH is mainly based on three distinctive human characteristics, namely

• an exclusively upright gait
• the quality of human skin, with subcutaneous fat and very thin hair
• the descended larynx, conscious control of the breath and speech.

As currently protected, the article makes absolutely no mention of any of these factors. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So, it might be fair to say that this article currently has a WRONGVERSION problem which makes it hard to use as a basis of generalisation (?). Formerip (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Some awkward questions people wish would just go away by themselves, rather than try to answer...

Could anyone kindly give me an explanation as to the origin of the usage of the term "FRINGE"?

Would I be incorrect in assuming that it is derived from the 70s phrase "LUNATIC FRINGE"?

Would I be incorrect in assuming that the term was originally a disparaging one?

Would I be incorrect in assuming that choice of such a term incorporates an inherent Point-of-View? I.E. it is highly subjective?

Would I be incorrect to state that, in any major controversy where people are roughly divided 50-50 into two opposing camps, one can usually find people on BOTH sides each loudly accusing the other side of being the "FRINGE", or "LUNATIC FRINGE"?

Thank you in advance for your explanations, they will help me to understand what's supposed to be going on here. Blockinblox (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

@Blockinblox - let's skip to the interesting one -which one are you referring to as "roughly divided 50-50"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Read it again, more carefully. I said "in any major controversy", without giving any specific examples. Blockinblox (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A "fringe" is strings or threads attached to a rug or carpet, not actually doing much more than being at the edge and fouling vacuum cleaners. Thus anything "at the edge" (of anything) is "at the fringe." In political terms, it is pretty much a useless concept as each side in any dispute tends to think of the other side as "fringe" or "extreme" or "radical." In science, the term usually denotes positions held by a small minority of scientists - but not denoting "rightness" or "wrongness" per se. Galileo was "fringe" to the others of his time, but now is not. I hope this helps. Collect (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really. People nowadays are getting used to seeing the world as a globe, and the only margins are on a flat view of the earth. Same with the world of thought, and those who would use a "neutral" project to marginalize everyone else's rather than learn about them.Blockinblox (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Flat earth margins/fringes can be very damaging: for example, AIDS denialism, MMR vaccination scare... (Though that doesn't necessarily mean that a Nobel Prize winner can't be pretty edgy too.) —MistyMorn (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

On the flip side, people try to use Wikipedia to advertise for their hypothesis (or one that they agree with). That's not what the encyclopedia is for. We marginalize all the time. We're not here to advertise anyone's garage band, nor are we here to advertise anyone's hypothesis that they can produce cold fusion in their garage. Once the band gets noticed by major record labels or magazines, they get mentions or articles. Once the guy in his garage gets papers peer-reviewed or covered repeatedly in major media, he gets a mention or article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What is going on here is I believe an encyclopaedia should present the notable facts about topics, even ones which are mad or bad. Others as far as I can make out think we need to be protected by suppressing anything which isn't mainstream. Which end of the spectrum matches yours idea of an encyclopaedia most closely? Dmcq (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking me, I think my view is much closer to yours, as you described it, though I would point out that your question seems to turn a 'spectrum' into a 'dichotomy'..Blockinblox (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This question has wider implications. “Fringe” obviously mean different things to different people. When I worked in R&D some of the scientist around me were looking into things that had not been looked into before. They were working on the fringes of what was already known. Ergo, the bulk of other researchers had not yet the chance to even consider it. It takes decades sometimes for things to filter through to the collages. Yet some people think that fringe automatic equates to them having “ flawed factual content” (as pointed out in the above link to by editor Dmcq). That's the pseudo-skeptic stance and a scientists answer to that is Sutor, ne ultra crepidam. New ideas should show up as they do in other encyclopedias as 'new theories'. My old Arthur Mees Encyclopaedia had a bit about the sun not burning hydrogen but under going some other type of 'atomic' reaction to explain its long lasting heat output to bring it into line that life on earth possible existed for thousands of years longer than had previously been imagined. Even back then, other posits, ideas, theorise -call them what you will - where allowed in. Science doesn’t work like school history books lead you to believe – all clean cut and perfect. John Snow didn't prove cholera was water born by that taking that pump handle off – he was dead before this theory was finally accepted by the whole medical community. You can read on Google books ( as I have) what the contemporary thought was at this time. Yet by fortune, he was a well regarded doctor that happened to be at the location of a very serious outbreak and when -with the benefit of hindsight- writers look back, the severity of the London outbreak stood out. Thus, he got the credit whilst all the names of the other supports are now forgotten. Wikipedia, if it is to really stand out, needs to make the clear distinction between fringe and pseudo-science. To have 'two' categories which invites cobblers to leave their lasts (Sutor, ne ultra crepidam style) and both bat and play catch at the same time creates a niche and safe haven for the pseudo-sceptics to dwell in and a focus point for WP critics to (and rightfully) laugh at. Thirty years ago it felt a privilege to say say to a puzzled graduate “Ah but – We’re working on the fringes...” --Aspro (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternative viewpoints can have due weight to appear in the articles. That is why mentions of string theory etc appear in the article Big Bang, as well as mention of religious interpretations but we aren't going to start sticking in young earth creationists viewpoints as that would be undue. The difference between alternative formulations which have a significant following (but not the majority) and pseudoscience etc is already laid out at the top of WT:FT, i.e Wikipedia already has a way to distinguish the content. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The bigger articles like Young Earth creationism have enough people defending them and get looked after properly so they aren't stripped of anything describing what they are about. They are informative articles describing the topic in a fairly reasonable way. But smaller articles like aquatic ape hypothesis don't have enough people defending them and are picked on and gutted or deleted. Try and find anything corresponding to what's in the creationism article's 'Characteristics and beliefs' section. You won't. All it says is 'Various traits that have been proposed to indicate past adaptation to aquatic conditions and the return to land' without ever mentioning any. Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There is always the alternative to consider, that there aren't 'enough' people defending the the article on AAT for a reason. That every pet theory needs to receive a detailed analysis on Wikipedia should not be taken for granted, such that those who disagree are to be accused of suppressing information or mandating correct thought. And of course any editor who has a problem with an article is always free to weigh in and try to fix it, coincidentally also a way to address the 'problem' of insufficient defense. Agricolae (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Articles abandoned from one-bad-apple: I once imagined that articles with "few people defending them" were limited in support due to a corresponding limit in readership. However, I eventually learned, without a doubt, that articles become abandoned by the "one-bad-apple" concept of hostile editors driving others away, or the "too-many-kooks-spoil-the-broth" where there is chaos of incoherent people who "no speaka da common sense". Unfortunately, college-educated people and experts rarely deal with so many uninformed people at this close level, or when they do, there are clear lines of leadership from the organized or knowledgeable leaders, to keep the group focused. If you find a bridge with surprisingly little traffic, look for the "wp:troll under the bridge". The conflicts with hostile or incoherent editors drive numerous people away, even from articles read by thousands of readers. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@ IRWolfie. Didn't follow any of that. How did 'young earth creationists' creep into this and where does your (IRWolfie) link WT:FT address pseudo-science. Who's post are you replying to? The problem is that many editors keep demonstrating that they can't distinguish the difference between pseudo-science and fringe. This appears to be the point of the OP's post and the reason that some academics throw up their hands in despair when they try to up-date WP. Just read some of the “why I have left WP” posts...--Aspro (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This article does not explain the topic it debunks

I'm not that familiar with the Aquatic ape hypothesis article, but looking over the article lede, I see 2 sentences describing the hypothesis, 2 sentences describing its history and 6 sentences debunking it. That means out of 10 sentences, only 2 describe the theory. Again, I'm not that familiar with the Aquatic ape hypothesis article, but I work a lot in articles about fringe theories, and I have encountered two problems:

• Activist editors trying to promote fringe theories in violation of NPOV.
• Activist editors trying to debunk and ridicule fringe theories in violation of NPOV.

To be honest, I prefer the second problem to the first, but second is still a problem. I sometimes think that we should create a template that says, "This article doesn't explain the topic it debunks.". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Numerous neutral editors have tried to improve this article but the opponents of AAH (those who see it as pseudoscience, or continually compare it to creationism or form changing lizards) use the term fringe so that they can put more weight on criticisms of the AAH than actually explaining what it is. Last year an ebook was published with contributions from numerous experts around the world including Elaine Morgan (an acknowledged expert), coinciding with the 50th anniversary of the publication of the article by Hardy which first introduced the hypothesis to the scientific world. This was deemed an unreliable source by opponents of the AAH. Meanwhile web-blogs and polemic web-sites critical of the AAH were deemed appropriate sources. The page has been protected three times in the last few months, each time on a version likely to please the opponents of the idea. New editors are accused of being sock puppets, and bullied until they leave. I’m encouraged that there are obviously some at Wikipedia who agree with me that this doesn’t reflect well on Wikipedia. In reality it really shouldn’t be too difficult to deal with this issue. The article should simply explain what the AAH is, including a summary of the hypothesis, the major proponents and significant publications, and then it should say that this hypothesis has not yet been accepted within the mainstream of palaeoanthropology. Then, we should provide a link to the Wikipedia article that does outline the mainstream view of human evolution. The problem is, of course, that there is no such article. Now why is that? Yloopx (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"No such article"? Then what do you think the topic of our Human evolution article is? And no, it is not true to say that the AAH "has not yet been accepted within the mainstream of palaeoanthropology". It has been flatly rejected. It never will be 'accepted' in the form presented by Morgan for example, as it isn't a formal scientific hypothesis in the first place. It is a vague collection of observations, clustered around a just-so story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of argument... Lets say that the AAH is a work of complete and utter fiction. How do we usually structure our articles about works of fiction? From my experience, we usually spend at least a paragraph or two outlining the basic plot of the work, and then move on to a section that discusses the work's reception by the critics... So why would an article on a notable fringe theory be structured any differently? Shouldn't we spend at least a short paragraph outlining the "plot of the story" (ie outline what proponents of the "hypothesis" say)... and then move on the a section on how that story was received by the critics? Blueboar (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone would object to that - but that wasn't what the deleted material was doing. It wasn't describing the AAH as proposed, but instead offering 'evidence' from more recent research, along with counter-arguments from palaeoanthropology etc. It was synthesis. Given the vagueness of the initial theory - which never gave much indication of when in hominid evolution the 'aquatic' phase happened, or explained why such traits as supposedly evolved in this period should be retained in a non-aquatic environment, without resorting to assumptions that they had some other advantage (which begs the question as to why they couldn't have evolved without the 'aquatic' stage in the first place..), such synthesis is more or less inevitable - because that is how the 'hypothesis' was constructed in the first place. It is difficult to give a concise description of a vague proposal... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, AndyTheGrump, but the Human Evolution article does not explain why humans evolved the way they did. It summarises the various fossil species, and looks at tools and evidence that humans did evolve. It addresses the multi-regional versus out of Africa debate, but as to why humans evolved the way they did, why they are different to other primates, why they are bipedal, furless and fat, for example, it offers nothing. The AAH, whether it is write or wrong, offers an explanation as to why humans are different to other primates. There is no mainstream alternative. Think about why that might be. Yloopx (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That is wrong and nonsensical. Hundreds of paleoanthropologists have studied the evolutionary history of humans and made as many hypothesis about what evolutionary trajectories lead to their current states. AAH is among the last supported of dozens of such hypotheses. You don't seem to know what you talk about.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry AndyTheGrump too but why does the article not have at least the plot like Blueboar says? And why in this case are developments of the theory to be ignored? That's like saying that quantum theory should be cut down to what Planck or Einstein originally said and Heisenberg is irrelevant. Why exactly is the idea that humans spent enough time wading on the seashore to greatly influenced our evolution for instance not considered part of the aquatic ape hypothesis? Because they say wading or littoral or shore dwelling instead of aquatic ape? Dmcq (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Because who says it? A scientific hypothesis is supposed to be something one can define, and something which is capable (in theory at least) of falsification. If new 'variations' of the 'hypothesis' are about a 'not-actually-aquatic' ape, why are they relevant to an article about aquatic apes? They aren't - but it makes a convenient coat-rack... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If, as you say Maunus, there are dozens of potential explanations for how humans evolved, this just demonstrates that the field has no real answer. In other words, AAH is not fringe (because there is no centre), it’s merely one of a number of competing hypotheses. The difference is, AAH explains numerous independent traits together (nakedness, large brain, tool use, voluntary breath control, subcutaneous fat, external nose, infant tolerance to immersion) whereas all these traits each have their own suite of explanations independent of each other, if they have any explanation at all, given ‘mainstream’ scenarios. Yloopx (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Mainstream palaeoanthropology doesn't attempt to explain human evolution by a single unfalsifiabile 'hypothesis' - because evolution doesn't work like that. It is ridiculous to think that everything that distinguishes the human line from the other great apes can be explained by a single event. Pseudoscience. Go away, and learn some science... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Who ever said “everything that distinguishes the human line from the other great apes can be explained by a single event”? Certainly not me. All I’ve been doing is reacting to other editors who continually say there are better explanations than the AAH to explain human evolution. Alright, but what are these explanations? Whenever I ask I get nothing. And of course the AAH is falsifiable. You're getting confused because it's never been falsified (unlike the savanna theory, which has, and which proves that broad evolutionary theories can be). Yloopx (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to argue that a theory is true or not. All I want is topics being described without one side trying to say it is a theory of everything and the other deleting all the content and turning Wikipedia into a worse encyclopaedia than Conservapedia. As Blueboar said so well above 'Shouldn't we spend at least a short paragraph outlining the "plot of the story" (ie outline what proponents of the "hypothesis" say)... and then move on the a section on how that story was received by the critics?'. A template like A Quest For Knowledge says "This article doesn't explain the topic it debunks."' would go some way to countering this business but the amount of wikilawyering that goes on sometimes to remove content is just incredible. Do we really need a new policy in Wikipedia just to say that articles should say something about the topic besides that it is not mainstream? If something isn't mainstream then fine say it isn't and give the reasons why, even have a push that way to promote rationality. But if Wikipedia can have articles about things like autofellatio surely we don't need to be protected from far far stranger ideas than the aquatic ape hypothesis? Dmcq (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So do something about it - suggest a specific textual modification on the article's Talk page and build a consensus for it. Agricolae (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to establish whether Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that supresses all non mainline stuff or not. Without that an editor who contributes to things like that might as well play some multiplayer game where griefers kill you every time you resurrect. Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I like to let them at least mount up and try to run, it makes it more interesting. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, you've made it very clear you already believe this. You're just fishing for someone to take your side. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, given that you are expressing your supposed question in the form of an indefensible straw-man, it makes the answer simple. No. Wikipedia is not "the encyclopaedia that supresses all non mainline stuff". (It may be the encyclopaedia that doesn't describe non-mainline stuff to the degree or in the manner that its partisans might like, but that is a different question than what you asked.) If that is all you need answered, then we are done here, right? Agricolae (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The article actually does describe the theory it debunks - that water was a significant driver of human evolution (it's really that simple). What it is currently not doing is listing every fact or opinion which proponents believed supported the theory; in other words, it does not lay out every specific line of evidence that allegedly supports the theory. I was the editor who removed the text originally [18], and I hope it is obvious why. This was 24,000 characters of "AAH says X, scientists say this, this, this, this, this and this" and towards the end a few new points proposed that were not rebutted because...no mainstream scientists bothered. As the rest of the page makes abundantly clear - the theory has no real traction anywhere among real experts. I have proposed a compromise on the talk page - retain the theory (i.e. human evolution was at some point driven by water) but return a pared-back list of the most prominent claims (bipedalism, hairlessness and breath control, suggested above, seem reasonable). I will point out that the ratio of claims to criticisms noted above actually seems appropriate to me - that's about the amount of attention the AAH has received in scholarly, secondary sources. The AAH is not a scientific debate, it is, like all fringe theories, a point of popular interest. Giving due weight to the scientific skepticism seems appropriate. Giving a massive amount of text to every single claim ever made (and the corresponding debunking of said claims) seems undue weight. A short list of the most prominent claims seems a fruitful way forward. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You think it is a 'compromise' to stick in some actual details about a notable topic? At the moment it does not list any reason, not a single one, why anyone would have thought of such a theory. Dmcq (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The compromise is between 24,000 characters worth of back and forth for a theory with no real acceptance, versus nothing. I've spent a lot of time tracking down the sources for those 24,000 characters, all with not a whit of change from the scientific community on the topic. That's what I want to avoid, having to find yet another source that points out some minor detail of the elephant's kidney does not mean hominins were once aquatic. Do you think it's an adequate compromise? If not, would you suggest replacing the list wholesale? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You think the article already describes the theory and including any details would be compromising. I believe that what was been done to the article was wrong and that putting in some detail would be to correct the error. What is needed is a clear vision of what Wikipedia is. If what you did is correct then I should just go and leave Wikipedia because it is not something I would want to waste time on and you would be free of one nuisance impeding the path to a fringe free Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a clear vision of what Wikipedia is: its a place where disagreements are discussed civilly between adults without anyone running off with appeals to big daddy every time the discussion doesn't go their way. We do not need a centralized policy of how much attention to give to fringe topics - talkpages are meant for discussing that on a case by case basis which is of course the only sound way to deal with such complicated issues.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, Wikipedia has a clear vision. And WLU's actions were in line with it: we report the mainstream scientific consensus, with some space given towards notable fringe ideas. It does not mean we throw in the kitchen sink of everyone's pet theory. Frankly, I'm surprised you stuck around this long. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to argue this where it doesn't belong, I'll "stray from the topic" to point out that the idea is not far-fetched. Humanity has been traced to an origin in the general area of Angola, but I'm thinking Namibia, specifically the Okavango Delta. The fauna of the environment, which goes through dramatic extremes of wet and dry every year, show adaptations for swamp life, such as the bipedal Chacma Baboons and the long, narrow feet of the Lechwe antelope. Mostly hairless, clever humans could enter the mud pits where animals become hopelessly mired without the fear of becoming trapped, and could feast on the defenseless creatures. With their intelligence they could plan moves between savannah, swamp, river banks and islands for strategic advantage. Saying that humans were not aquatic, by which it is supposed, that they never ventured into swampland through millions of years of evolution, and show no visible evidence of adaptation on this basis, despite their enthusiastic use of riverside and oceanside locations throughout known history - that may really be the fringe idea.

Now before someone lectures me on "original research", I'll add, I'm not saying I can deny the literature. But the literature must be considered carefully on this point. Does it say that all variants of the hypothesis are fringe, or does it say only that an extreme version where humans took to the sea like a walrus is absurd? Even if the idea is considered wrong, does the literature refer to it anyway, like a strawman? For example, Born rigidity is wrong, but it is invaluable for illustrating apparent paradoxes in special relativity, and we don't suppress it as a "fringe idea", but simply say what is said about it. Wnt (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The literature for the most part does not mention AAH at all. It is not on the table as a serious contender. I have four college level textbooks that make no reference to it whatsoever.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any biologist denies that environment has an influence on evolution, including that of humans. However, the "aquatic ape" really is the "humans took to the sea like a walrus" bit. The rest is people using accepted theories of environmental influence on evolution to extrapolate into "humans took to the sea." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The hypothesis is that our ancestors spend a part of their evolution at the waters edge. Not that they were like walruses or even hippos in how they swam or even that they swam a lot. The main thing they were supposed to have done is quite lot of wading in water or at least to have depended on wading enough for it to have determined a number of features that distinguish humans from apes. See [19] for the 1960 article by Hardy in New Scientist. I guess some religious people have this problem of having to say they abhor some things without knowing even the basics of what they're supposed to be abhorring. Dmcq (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• The issue I have with the article is that it doesn't properly explain the hypothesis at all. Every line that begins to go toward an explanation is then followed by a line that makes sure to debunk the previous line, completely ruining the flow of what the article is about. I've read the entire article and still have little to no idea on what the hypothesis actually is. All i'm struck by is, "wow, this article seems to only exist to criticize the subject. How is this meeting NPOV at all?" Silverseren^C 22:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If people were really interested in finding out what the AAH is all about (and I guess we should assume that Wikipedia readers are), a good place to start would be this ebook [20] published last year, including contributions from Elaine Morgan, Marc Verhaegen, Phillip Tobias, Michael Crawford and many other acknowledged experts on the subject from well-respected institutions all over the world. The fact that this ebook, which is specifically about the AAH, is not considered a reliable source for this article, while polemic websites are, is the first place I’d look for trying to improve the quality and tone of the article. Yloopx (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sometimes we need to explain a topic without validating it. That's a tricky balance, particularly since such topics tend to draw editors with fairly polarized views. We don't have a lot of roadmaps to follow, because these topics are generally so obscure, wrong-headed, obsolete, or discredited that they aren't covered at all by other serious reference works (whether we should cover them is a debate for another time). MastCell ^Talk 00:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article controversy on ptwiki

Well, now the discussion is about you opinion, so I figured why not just ask?

In the Wikipedia:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article there is a section that mentions your opinion about the need for sources "in general" as in contrast to your opinion about the need for sources in BLP cases. What some editors in ptwiki are arguing is that the original quote is from a case where "Sergey and Larry Page threw pies at each other" [21] and they see it as another BLP case.

Their more general argument is that article with no sources should not be deleted (they concede on the BLP cases) but marked with no-sources templates or otherwise improved.

So what is your opinion in this matter? Chico Venancio (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that articles with no sources should be marked with a no-sources template that is dated, and then deleted if no sources emerge in a reasonable (and short) period of time. I think there is also no reason to have a simple rule: some articles with no sources are such that anyone can quickly determine that no sources are likely to ever emerge, and then deletion should take place more quickly. Other articles with no sources are obviously potentially valid articles and so an attempt should be made to improve them first. But in all cases, if an article has no sources for some period of time, it should be deleted in due course.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How Can I Put The Banner Idea Forward?

Hey, Jimbo,How do I put this banner I showed you a while ago forward for the 2012/13 fundraiser? User Talk:Willdude123 19:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone did a banner a while ago - can't be bothered to find it - which just said "[donation needed]" in big blue letters. I liked that one. Formerip (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd talk to Zack at the Foundation. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How should I go about doing that because, obviously I can't edit the foundation's wiki, and he seems inactive on wikipedia.Cheers User Talk:Willdude123 07:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Keith Raniere

Hi. Some members, myself included have a message for you on the Keith Raniere talk page. Some members have left pointers regarding your feedback as a admin here. Please view it asap. Willowfang (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Keith Raniere

Hi. Some members, myself included have a message for you on the Keith Raniere talk page. Some members have left pointers regarding your feedback as a admin here. Please view it asap. Willowfang (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I won't have time to view any of your talk page stalkers comments here, because I'm too busy doing your job on the talk page there, tisk tisk. Willowfang (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I smell a sock...--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Deprotección de una película del 2007

("Deprotection of a film from 2007")

Could you lift the protection in this article Juno (film)? I think it's been protected for too long. 190.51.170.108 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please make requests to unprotect pages at WP:Requests for page protection, because it often takes time to coordinate with other users. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo

You are awesome

A cheeseburger for you

You are very helpful!! Berwick writer (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the kittens enjoy the food while they ponder the graphs. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)