Template talk:BLP

• Template talk:Blp/archive1

Note that WP:BLP is now policy.

Please do not archive this heading, at least for some time. -- Fyslee 21:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

I really don't see the benefit of adding the image. It seems rather unnecessary and unprofessional, and also could be taken to presume things about the subject - that the subject is an adult, that the subject can stand up, etc. --Philosophus ^T 22:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the symbol for a human being, the one that was sent into space. I think it emphasized the point of the tag rather nicely, so I'd like to put it back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have a sketch of two naked bodies? Because they are nude, the picture implies that the article might somehow be about human physiology; unless the article is about a porn star, a person's life takes place mostly in the mind, and usually fully clothed. If a picture is necessary at all (is it?), a better picture would be a picture of faces, which connotes more of the person rather than the human body. —Centrx→talk • 23:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A fully clothed mind? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the NASA image of human beings that was sent into space. It's known universally and therefore I felt it was appropriate. The message of the tag is "When you write an article about a living person, remember you're dealing with a human being." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It was on Pioneer 10 and 11. See Pioneer Plaque. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But it was about what humans look like, directed toward another type of life form, not about biographies and living people. The image just doesn't seem related to the tag, and looks bizarre. The whole plaque really wasn't designed for normal human use, with the hyperfine structure based units and so on. The faces idea might be more appropriate if one wants to emphasize that one is dealing with an article about a real person with feelings. --Philosophus ^T 00:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is gratuitous, and the template is too bulky as it is. Some of these talk pages suffer from an incredible amount of template clutter. --Michael Snow 17:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many templates, but this is an important one that editors and subjects of bios have to see, so it needs to stand out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I was actually in the process of attempting to find an image when SlimVirgin beat me to it. I thought it was great. Since so many are objecting, how about another image that somehow fits the message, something related to kindness and the Golden Rule? An image is an important eye-catcher. Without it the text box just gets drowned among all the other text on a page. Is there somewhere here at Wikipedia where one can check out all the images that are already approved for use here? -- Fyslee 17:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You can go here, Fyslee, and do a search. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, I liked the idea you mentioned elsewhere of a handshake, so I added one. What do you think? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I love it! That's precisely the idea we need to convey, and the image is a nice eye catcher. I have tried to make it longer again, so it is the same length as the other template. Now the image is slightly off-center (vertically). I don't know how to fix that. There should be some standard formatting requirements for templates. -- Fyslee 09:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the image should be made smaller, to the same size as the other image (in the other template). -- Fyslee 09:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Another problem, at list in my browser (XP6) the image and text aren't stable, the text being partially covered by the image. Updating the page fixes it, but that shouldn't be necessary. I don't know enough about HTML to fix that. -- Fyslee 17:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My browser has the same problem, the picture obscures the text until I refresh the page. It does this every time, even after I clear the cache. BTW, I really liked the Pioneer people-pic - very eye-catching and relevant to the issue (there are living people here!) :_ Dreadlocke 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I liked it too, but for some reason others didn't, so Fyslee thought of the handshake instead. I think it shouldn't be so long and thin, because that causes it to merge in with the other tags, and it needs to stand out, so I adjusted it so that the first line ends with "biographies of living persons." Fyslee and Dreadlocke, do you still see the image overlap thing with it at this size? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, it was still overlapping, but I adjusted it a bit according to the html code that was in the Pioneer edit, which had good spacing. It looks ok from my browser now. Dreadlocke 02:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know how to fix it myself or I would have. It looks great in my browser now, too.--WilliamThweatt 03:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Glad I could help! Dreadlocke 05:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dreadlocke, it looks much better now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The size of the image was tolerable, as long as it doesn't inflate the template vertically to a size beyond what the text alone would produce. However, the image chosen turns out to have been not public domain, but a copyrighted stock photo, so it's not allowed. --Michael Snow 00:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael, what didn't you like about the Pioneer image? Quite a few people said they preferred it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And other people objected to it, pointing out a variety of implications that detract from the point this template tries to make. I realize people want to slap a picture on every little template for some reason, but the choices are often poorly suited to illustrate the message. The image is a symbol of human form, perhaps, but that's not really what the template is getting at. The salient issue is that these people are living, which is relegated to the background or not apparent at all from the pictures chosen so far (a drawing, alive?). A quick way to illustrate the concept isn't necessarily easy, but something like a newborn baby would come a lot closer to getting the point across, I think. Those who see many of our complaints from affected parties might also sympathize with the implication that there's a lot of unwarranted wailing involved. --Michael Snow 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this for a representation of living: God creating Adam. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Or two young girls? [2] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Sistine fresco certainly fits with the point, although it requires a particular cultural understanding to recognize. I'd guess some people would be disturbed by the religious aspect of the image, just as others didn't like the frank nudity of the Pioneer plaque. Rather than offend people unnecessarily, I'd go with the two girls. Youthfulness is a decent way to communicate being alive, so that's probably the best choice of those I've seen so far. --Michael Snow 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like the handshake image. I didn't notice whatever images were there before, so no opinion about those. Phr (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that Pioneer image. That would have been fine. Eliminating the image is also fine, I don't really see the need for one. I had no idea there had been a controversy, I only discovered it by visiting this page to gripe about the handshake picture. Phr (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I just added a parameter to {{WPBiography}} where someone can add living=yes and the text of the BLP template appears. What do you think? Incorporates it into a talk template that will be there anyway plus article can now be added to our category of living persons. See Lance Armstrong for an example. plange 01:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I do like it but a downside is that it doesn't stand out as much in comparison to using the blp template. I am afraid many people won't read all the four paragraphs of the template (from looking at the Lance Armstrong example. Maybe place it to the top of the template instead of the bottom? Garion96 (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

How about now? plange 02:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it much better. Thanks. Garion96 (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I did this before I saw the discussion here, so didn't see the dialog about images, so let me know if you think it should be switch. I thought the caution symbol was appropriate, but am completely open to changing it...plange 02:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood. I thought it would add this template automatically. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it adds the text into the Project banner.... Seems cleaner and more efficient? all someone has to do is add living=yes to the existing project tag plange 19:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a great idea, but the problem is that it doesn't stand out, and so it's not clear people will see it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, will try something a little different-- am not a wiz with parser functions so not sure if I can pull it off but will give it the ol' college try! Am thinking perhaps having a nice header in bold that says Biography of a living person and then this disclaimer and then a line that goes under it, sort of like it's separate from the project banner messaging, etc...plange 22:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

How 'bout now? plange 22:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, plange, thank you! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So should we put this template up for deletion and replace with new proposal? plange 19:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, because not everyone will want to use that large template. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

FoN, what is the problem with the formatting? Every time you change it, people complain about image overlap problems. This is the size and format that seemed to fix it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I put the image in a separate table cell. I don't see how it's possible for it to be overlapping the text. Floating the image within the same cell could cause the last line of the text to appear underneath the image, which should be avoided.

Hmm... I knew internet explorer was bad, but not that bad... Should look okay now. —freak(talk) 20:56, Jul. 31, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, FoN. It looks fine for me, but then it always did. Others were saying there was an overlap, so hopefully they can say whether they still see it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good again, aligned well, no overlapping, and the picture looks excellent - although I still prefer SlimVirgin's Pioneer-People-Pic..  :) Dreadlocke 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Me too, but the nudity scared people apparently. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please consider making it slightly longer, so it is the same length as other templates, for example here. Otherwise it looks fine. -- Fyslee 22:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's too long and thin like that and doesn't stand out enough. It would be really nice if people could leave it alone now. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see it colored to stand out more, maybe like this. -- Fyslee 22:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that's ugly. The currently current version seems okay. —freak(talk) 01:29, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The purple is a bit lurid. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. I should have specified that I just meant the idea of adding a color, and chose that example of where it was tried. This color code should produce a pleasant green, the color we see when we see changes in the edit history: CCFFCC I'll try it. -- Fyslee 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction! I'll let someone else try it. I'm not good enough at HTML. -- Fyslee 19:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Handshake image

I think the current handshake image is rather distracting. I liked the Pioneer image but I'm also fine with no image at all. Haukur 09:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Haukurth, how about these? God creating Adam (i.e. living person). [3] Or two young girls. [4] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the girls aren't too bad. Haukur 10:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think the hand image is poor and could be perceived to have connotations of collaborating with the subject- the girl image seems to be the most neutral. Arniep 14:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, <joking class="i_hope">how about the old Vancouver Skybridge photo</joking>. —freak(talk) 15:50, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

The Sam Spade version? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the handshake image is excellent, myself. A handshake is a symbol of trustworthiness, which is why it gets used by banks and insurance companies. It emphasizes that we are fair dealers and should behave politely, especially with a living subject. A static person icon could be acceptable, but I don't think it would create the same impression. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• It also emphasises that we are white males who like to shake hands. Is that what's intended? I think it's a nonsense graphic added for lack of anything better. A biography has nothing to do with a shaking hands. A handshake isn't a symbol of trustworthiness (albeit, it may be a demonstrator to promote trust by not carrying weapons) -- it's generally a symbol of greeting or agreement.--Leflyman^Talk 06:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's precisely the problem, that handshake looks like two white male bankers or insurance executives who have just completed a rapacious deal to repossess every car in South America, or something like that. It creeps me out. There's tons of "people" and "people icon" pictures on commons, why not just use one? Here's a few that I like but there's plenty more. The "scribe" and "cowboy" ones could be cropped to remove most of the background.

• 
• 
• 
• 

I put the "two girls" image in, as we are universal in our hatred of the banker's handshake. - brenneman ^{L} 03:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could have the girls facing the text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't recall whether my reaction was bcz of some specific article that i saw the little-girls version in, or bcz of seeing it while i was listening to a news report about the Jon-Benet Ramsey suspect's EMails about his admiration for her. In any case, we do have article(s) on him, and other living people for which the little-girls version will be tasteless.
--Jerzy•t 05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Alejandro Avila Is one. There may be others. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what a b/w picture of two girls has to do with biographies of living persons. I noticed that this picture was taken in 1943. It's unclear who these girls are or if they are still living people. A picture of a long dead pioneer would be equally inappropriate as would the picture of Adam as this is not a theology template. What was wrong with the original icon? (P.S. I found the Lorenzo Lamas picture particularly amusing!) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what Jimbo says?

What matters is what the policy is. Why do we need that link to Jimbo's email in the Template? It does not make the policy any more forceful. It is policy. Period. -- 67.116.253.22 09:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

More wording issues

The reason I prefer [5] to [6] is that the former seems more inviting and accessible to non-Wikipedians. Saying that you should edit is different from saying that an editor should edit. Consider the use case of people unfamiliar with wikis who come upon a libellous article about themselves. They may take "editor" to mean a traditional managing editor. Going into technicalities about things such as the WP:3RR seems distracting for the same reason. The template prominently links to the policy, it doesn't need to summarize it at length. Haukur 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is turning into the template from hell. We can't agree on wording, color, size, shape, or image. :-) I do agree with the above, though. I find the recent one too aggressive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we agree it's an important template :) And I agree with you for a change - feels like we've been at odds too often lately. Haukur 21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Aargh, I should've known that there'd be something like this for a template that changed that much so quickly. I've made some changes to them, hopefully not [irritating] too many people ;D. 68.39.174.238 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Excessive templating?

What should one make of anonymous editor 67.121.115.67 dropping this template on what appear to be exclusively articles listed in Category:anti-Semitic people? IP 75.23.154.140 has also done so, but added it onto other controversial figures' talk pages, as well. --Leflyman^Talk 08:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the contributions, but if they're BLPs, it's okay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A further refinement?

I occurs to me that it might do us well to distinguish between a regular biography and one where the story deals with ongoing litigation (where the Foundation is not a party, since I assume that WP:OFFICE takes over then). -- 67.119.193.169 00:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What kind of distinction were you thinking of? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

An extra template or a specialization of this one that highlights the fact that an active legal case (or likely appeals) are still in play and that additional caution is advisable. Might as well include both civil and criminal. No need for immune people like U.S. Presidents, but if the article is going to, say, report on such active legal cases, then we can keep an eye of such even more closely. -- 67.121.114.82 08:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I see the need for that. We should be cautious when writing BLPs regardless of any legal cases that are going on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative Material

Should the template warn only against poorly-sourced negative material, or should it be broader in connotation? Is positive information to be accepted more leniently? That seems like bad policy to me. --Eyrian 00:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Positive material wouldn't be defamatory. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I understand the legal necessity for preventing false, negative information. However, It was merely an idea that the template would warn against all unsourced information. --Eyrian 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We have this situation now where biographies of controversial people (e.g. major politicians) are turning into hagiographies. The necessity of getting rid of unsourced negative stuff is obvious; but it's extremely difficult to also get rid of unsourced positive stuff and have anything left. The result is the NPOV of these articles is getting clobbered. Daniel Brandt is (or was; I haven't looked at it lately) an extremely closely sourced bio that I like to cite as an example, but the amount of work it took to do it must have been insane. I don't have any answer to this tension between BLP and NPOV. And now we've got this arbcom decision coming (Hunger Project) that currently proposes to extend the BLP principles to businesses as well as people. So I guess Wikipedia will turn out to be an advertising service after all. Wikipedia is doomed, film at 11. Phr (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Any article

I propose a change (shown) to the following sentence in the template:

"Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to this any article or its talk page(s)."

Justification for this change is found in the very beginning of the policy's article:

"These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles."

-- Fyslee 18:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem since it matches the policy you quote. However, I would be concerned if someone felt it necessary (or used a bot) to add this template to every talk page of every article that merely mentions a living person. Perhaps there should be guidelines on when it is useful to use this template. Colin Harkness°^Talk 10:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Colin, you've got a good point there. The template should continue to be used as it normally is used - only on biography talk pages. But...it might be a good idea to emphasize the point better in the article. I'll comment there as well. -- Fyslee 10:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. There is already a guideline on the policy page:

Template:Blp may be added to the talk pages of biographies of living persons so that editors and readers, including subjects, are alerted to this policy.

Maybe there should be a reminder at the top of this talk page, to help people know what the template is for and when to use it? Colin Harkness°^Talk 11:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists of people

In addition to biographical articles, should lists of people use this template? See Lists (stand-alone lists) - Lists of people. Obviously lists of dead people don't count. What about lists where the criteria is complimentary or neutral (lists of Olympic gold medal winners, or Prime Ministers, for example)? Colin Harkness°^Talk 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think all lists, regardless of their nature, with a significant number (say, more than 20-30%) of living people included should have the template in the talk page. It may only serve as a reminder, though. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Transcluding the text?

Was wondering if we could put the text of the template on another page and transclude it into this template and {{WPBiography}}? Currently we're transcluding {{blp}} directly since the language was changing so often, but we're getting complaints that our template is too big. I'd like to go back to the version our bio tag had a couple of days ago where it was prominently on top, but nice and compact. Is this cool? I can make the page with the text, just let me know plange 00:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I went ahead and did this-- Template:Blp/BLPtext plange 22:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi plange, doesn't it put more strain on the servers to do it that way? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think so-- Do you know for sure? Even if it was, our tag was transcluding the BLP template anyway so changing it from one transclusion to another shouldn't be worse....plange 14:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know anything technical for sure. :-D What's the benefit of doing it that way i.e. of having the text on a separate page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So that when you guys change the text, ours changes too...plange 15:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And that wouldn't happen otherwise? I'd better revert myself in that case. Sorry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't happen. Doing it this way (my idea IIRC) allows both templates to use exactly the same text, but to go their own way on formatting. Note: {{Blp}} will hardly ever be used on a standalone basis anyway, as most living person articles are now tagged with {{WPBiography|living=yes}} and within the next few days they all* will be. *Apart from the newest articles and any where editors have detagged, of course.

Strain on the servers: Minimal, and Mediawiki has page (object) caching. Not worth worrying about I'd say (but I'm not a developer). --kingboyk 13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

PS I've also modified {{KLF}} and {{WPBeatles}} to display this warning, but currently we're transluding {{Blp}} rather than {{Blp/BLPtext}}. --kingboyk 13:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WPBiography

• I've added the template (noinclude) to Category:WikiProject Biography to aid with navigation for editors who are interested in Biography. I hope this isn't controversial and that we can agree that WikiProject Biography should be the central meeting point for such issues, but if you don't agree please revert and/or discuss.

• I've also added a note that {{WPBiography}} is generally the preferred template, because it displays the same message as {{Blp}} and then some. The note might need a little copyediting.

--kingboyk 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wording, revisited

Starting a new thread as I can't find where this was last discussed.

As you've probably noticed, I've been tagging living persons biographies with {{WPBiography}}, which includes the warning message from this template. Until I added a FAQ about it, I was getting at least one message a day from concerned editors who thought that the message meant there was something wrong with their article. Might the warning be reworded, to make it clear that it's a statement of general policy and not necessarily indicative of problems in the article to which the notice is attached? --kingboyk 13:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Protect {{Blp/BLPtext}}?

Since the text is now transcluded into well over 100,000 talk pages, and I can't see any reason why non-admins should need to edit it, should it be protected or at least semi-protected? Any changes ought to be discussed here first, and there are plenty of admins about who can update the text (myself included). Note that I propose protecting only {{Blp/BLPtext}} and not {{Blp}} (which is just formatting, and mostly superceded by {{WPBiography}}). --kingboyk 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea -- we don't need vandals playing their goofy games on that page plange 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. There's been too much chopping and changing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection is not warranted at this time. The page has had some 45 edits this month, none of them vandalism. Any vandalism would be quickly reverted and only affect people browsing talk pages (i.e. mostly editors rather than innocent passerby). Haukur 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that changes to that template will slow down WP as it will queue up the changes in their thingamajig. Kinboyk can explain it better. It's now on 100K pages....plange 20:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The job queue. That's only the case if a link/transclusion/category is changed (the link tables have to be updated). Editing of simple text isn't really an issue in that regard. --kingboyk 20:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if there are only a few edits, it's still a high risk template, and aren't high risk templates generally protected? Hbdragon88 22:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems like consensus to me. I'll protect it now. --kingboyk 22:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Must Be Unsourced Materials Removed?

The current text of the template says unsourced materials must be removed immediately. Several times I included some materials which I knew from personal contact or some now unavailable source. Sometimes I also found it in reliable source, which is however surely temporary and unsuitable for citing. No information of this kind were negative, but without them the articles would be stubs at last.

I understand the policy of avoiding extensive use of unsourced materials, but I would be rather against demanding their immediate removal if they are not controversial - rather they should be marked with the "citation needed" note. Okino 15:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they mean unsourced negative content. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 07:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Image change

Could we discuss and see other editors comments before changing the image? We now had hands, girls, David Hasselhoff?? Deng Xiaoping and now Robert DeNiro. Garion96 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I still liked the pioneer image the best. Garion96 (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If they're not proposed and agreed upon here first, just revert. Same goes for picture changes at {{WPBiography}}. --kingboyk 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The image should have some context relating to biographies of living people. A handshake, two girls, or a long dead pioneer do not. Someone earlier on this talk page mentioned that the image of two girls might not look appropriate on talk pages of murderers of children. This is an excellent example why the current image probably is not the best choice. A generic icon would be better. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a long dead pioneer. :) It's this image. Either way, I don't think the image should depict a real person we have an article about. Garion96 (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, LOL, "Pioneer" image. Still, how is that "living people?" -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a 'generic icon' for one. But I guess people would object (and already have) over the fact that it's nude. I would prefer an image at least where you can't identify the people in it. The chance is small but if one of the girls (women now) on this picture would ever use wikipedia, see might be (unpleasantly) surprised to see her face is used on 100.000(?) talk articles. Garion96 (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Category:Living people has in the region of 115,000-120,000 articles in it. About 100,000 or so are currently tagged. --kingboyk 20:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the Pioneer image. It's been sent into space as an icon representing human beings, so it seems very appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Libelous / Libellous

The correct spelling is "Libelous", with one "L". The rule is that the final consonant should be doubled, only if when pronounced, the accent is on the final syllable. With "Libel", the accent is on the first syllable, so the final consonant should not be doubled. This also makes it consistent with the spelling at Slander and libel, Webster's dictionary, and is the most common usage on Wikipedia [7]. There seems to be some indication that "libellous" is a valid UK spelling, but the single "L" version outnumbers it, 10 to 1. --Elonka 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any need to change a valid spelling, and this is an international site. What do other people think? --kingboyk 12:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Elonka's logic is impeccable this edit suggestion should be instituted. (→Netscott) 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Both are valid. The MoS says spellings should be changed only when there's a reason to do so and I don't see that it makes any difference here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there's likely to be a group of edits made shortly and there's no reason to not follow Wikipedia's norm of a 10 to 1 ratio of one spelling over the other. (→Netscott) 22:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Libellous" (670,000 hits) is by far the least common spelling. "Libelous" would be better (3,450,000 hits). It is also the spelling used in the article itself. Since Wikipedia has such a great impact on knowledge and spelling, we should attempt to make sure we do things in the best, and in this case the most common, manner. Erroneous (or less preferable) spellings or misleading expressions should be corrected and pointed out throughout Wikipedia, not treated as if they are inconsequential. -- Fyslee 12:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{editprotected}} The current wording could do for a slight tweak:

Current wording:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy as it directly concerns one or more living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.

Tweaked wording:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy as content in it directly concerns one or more living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.

Frequently an article may not be directly about an individual but certainly have content about the individual (see Islamophobia). Thanks. (→Netscott) 11:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, but I think that "it directly concerns one or more living people" says the same as "as content in it directly concerns one or more living people" albeit more eloquently. My take is to leave it as is. As with the above, I'd welcome comments from other editors before deciding whether to change the text or not. (I've disabled {{editprotected}} as this page is on my watchlist and I'll deal with it if there's consensus to change). --kingboyk 12:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a need to change it. They both say the same thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Noticeboard addition?

It would be good to add the noticeboard to the template to give editors a place to turn to in the event that problems arise. Like so:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy as content in it directly concerns one or more living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the biographies noticeboard.

(→Netscott) 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Show me a couple of supporters and I'll add it. --kingboyk 18:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, let's just be bold here, ok? (→Netscott) 18:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to show me the BOLD link, you think I got adminship without knowing about that page?! :) The problem is, this is a policy from on high, and I had no involvement with setting it up. I don't feel comfortable changing the wording based on whether I think it's an improvement or not. I'd prefer to see consensus and then I can blame you lot! :P (Side note, the job queue is currently over 500,000 so any changes won't take effect for several hours anyway. Updating the link tables for over 100,000 articles takes quite a long time). --kingboyk 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I see, well as an editor who previously worked on this template in an unbridled fashion you perhaps can understand why I take the stance that I do. (→Netscott) 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You can edit the Blp template as much as you like, it's only the text that's locked. All I'm asking for is 2 other editors to support the change, that's not much to ask for a change to text which is transcluded over 100,000 times. Non-negotiable so go ask another admin or wait until some supporters have shown up. --kingboyk 19:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Another addition

<noinclude> {{protected template}} </noinclude>

• This should go at the head of the protected template. (→Netscott) 22:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Done, thank you very much. --kingboyk 08:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Commas affect meaning

My abiding opposition to BLP and the concomitant template notwithstanding, it occurs to me that the comma that follows poorly sourced ought to be removed; insofar as the sourcing qualifier is restrictive, it ought not to be set off (to be sure, the formulation absent a comma seems unwieldly, but it is quite right to say Unsourced or poorly sourced potentially libellous material). Do others concur? Joe 03:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a simple grammatical issue. Changed, and thank you. --kingboyk 08:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The presence and placing of commas affects the meaning. Right now libelous material is allowable if its well-sourced, which makes the existence of BLP policy toothless and somewhat meaningless. Here's what should be there:

• "Unsourced or poorly sourced, and especially potentially libellous, material ...."

This emphasizes that potentially libelous material isn't allowed here. Such matters must be settled between the involved parties in a court of law, not be exposed and discussed here at Wikipedia. Trial results can of course be discussed, but that's after the fact, and should be sourced from third parties. -- Fyslee 06:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that change the meaning a little bit? It's saying that any poorly sourced material can be removed without regard to 3RR whether or not potentially libellous? Perhaps we need something like "Potentially libellous material must be removed unless..." (some words describing under what circumstances it is allowed, valid sources etc). In a way that would be better, as I think the current wording is in danger of neutering Wikipedia. --kingboyk 08:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does, and that was my point, as explained above. I believe the sentence contains two elements that should be dealt with independently, even though related:

1. Poor sourcing
2. Potentially libelous content

Here's the current history of this sentence:

Was:

• "Unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libellous material ..."

Now:

• "Unsourced or poorly sourced potentially libellous material ..."

My suggestion:

• "Unsourced or poorly sourced, and especially potentially libellous, material ...."

I believe that all libelous material, whether potential or not, should be kept out of Wikipedia, unless extremely well-sourced with the highest quality sources available. If such sources can be found, then it has already been proven to be true and it isn't libelous anymore, but is proven fact, which just makes it very negative material that can be included. Until a court or reliable third party source makes that decision, it's original research and an editor pushing a libelous opinion designed to damage the subject involved, which is very unwikipedian, but is a common occurrence here.

I believe this position is in keeping with the spirit embodied in this Jimbo Wales' quote:

• "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

We simply need to place more emphasis on keeping potentially libelous material out of Wikipedia, and we can do that by strategically placing the comma.

Spelling

As far as spelling goes, "libellous" (670,000 hits) is by far the least common spelling. "Libelous" would be better (3,450,000 hits). It is also the spelling used in the article itself.

-- Fyslee 12:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

BLP needs to include definition of libel up front

Right now clicking on the word "libellous" takes you to the rather thorough article on libel. Someone who is just adding stuff isn't going to take the time to look up the definition there. I propose that a brief one-line definition of libel be added to the BLP. Something like "Libel: an untrue or unproven statement that may cause defamation of an individual" or something like that (the wording would have to be worked on, or perhaps lifted from the libel article). I just think asking editors to go off-page might be a bit less efficient than simply stating out right that this is what we mean by libel. Just a thought. Otherwise I think it's a good idea, although still open to interpretation in terms of what constitutes a "poor source". 23skidoo 06:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)