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)

Some of your proposals have merit. But the key is the focus of many of them to "minor" BLPs. Tarc's proposal would apply to all BLPs, including major BLPs, which goes way too far. Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 12 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)

• Support Tarc's proposal. Over the years, Wikipedia has shown how amazingly successful it has been in its mission. Kudos to us. But there are some areas where we continue to struggle. Regarding BLPs, we've tried various mild solutions, but we *still* have trouble with articles being hijacked by Proponents of The Truth on a mission (not limited to BLPs but particularly insidious in impact there). We put concerned LPs through the wringer when they try to intervene (smothering them in policies and acronyms, or taking them through sometimes nasty discussions by a largely pseudonymous crowd that opines about their "marginal notability"). Tarc's proposal would provide a useful safety valve for where we can't seem to get it right. Reactions to 2 of the arguments against mentioned above: a) "Would we therefore delete Barack Obama if he asked?" --> Yes, we could survive without a biographical article on Mr. Obama if needed; the really important parts relate to his position and specific actions, and would continue to be covered under President of the United States. b) "What about people whitewashing their internet presence?" --> not our problem, if people want to play such games on either side they can continue to do it elsewhere. As a top 5 (or 10 or whatever) website on an internet of millions of sites, we have a special responsibility to be ethical but no responsibility to have the Right Answer to Every Problem. And better we have no article at all than being caught in the crossfire on BLPs. (Unless we can reliably find a better, less invasive solution soon, I would actually support a no-BLP policy altogether. Not "no mention of living people where relevant", but no *biographies* of LP. And yes, that would include proactively deleting Barack Obama.) Martinp (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Except BLP policy applies to all articles. So if the President of the United States had problematic content, we haven't solved any BLP issue by deleting the Barack Obama article. I suppose we could move the Barack Obama article to Barack Obama presidency, which would technically not be a biographical article about Obama himself, but that would still permit the same problematic BLP material to appear. And then we would need separate articles for his senate career, his presidential candidacy, etc., which would be confusing to readers without an overarching Obama article. Or, for a less prominent but still major league BLP, we could move an article about a US Congressman to an article about that person's congressional career, which again would not be technically a biography but of course still subject to BLP. So I am not sure what that accomplishes. After all, are we really solving anything when Rick Santorum can delete his article upon request, but not the neologism article. I don't have a problem deleting minor league BLPs on request, but major league BLPs are appropriate topics for an encyclopedia regardless of the subject's wishes, although of course all BLP policies need apply (regradless). Rlendog (talk) 20:01, 12 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 know what the Foundation would say, but I have the impression that in order to take a commercial publisher's responsibility they should implement a commercial publisher's methods of excluding falsehoods. For example, they should not allow non-employees to wander in and contribute content. They should pay employees to edit the articles at something approaching a prevailing wage to ensure they are not getting cut-rate unqualified help but those properly certified by relevant institutions. They should fire employee-editors who in any way put them at risk. And, of course, they should copyright their product and sell it at a substantial fee, not only to allow them to pay all those employee editors, but also to limit their liability should anything slip through anyway because it turned out one of their employees is just as capable of academic dishonesty as any schoolkid or New York Times reporter. Now, I know it disappoints you that WMF isn't willing to do all those things in order that you can make your point to us scum of the Earth that our role in life is merely to watch the pretty celebrities, on bent knees, praying that all our cash and taxes can go to their perfect maintenance, nothing held back for us let alone the verminous poor, without us ever daring to try to make a comparison or index of all the stuff the media has brandished in front of our faces about our Gods. But apparently they aren't. We the ordinary editors will continue talking among ourselves and continue rebelling by allowing our little whispers to taint their perfect ears every now and then, by accident, before the miscreant at fault is roundly punished. At least, that is, not until a week or two from now when you people get your Pending Changes and certify yourselves as the overseers of this operation, with all us ordinary editors demoted to the level of the occasional schizophrenic bum who walks into a newspaper with breathless words of wonder. Then I guess it's Google Knol or Yahoo Contributor Network or something; if we're going to have bosses to tell us what to do, might as well be some who pretend to pay us. Wnt (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course the Foundation has a fiduciary duty to limits its liability. But it surely also has a moral duty to limit the risks it exposes its biography subjects to. I would like to see Wikimedia guarding the fortunes of its biography subjects, as well as those of companies and other organisations written about here, as jealously as it guards its own. JN466 10:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do alarm bells start ringing everytime I read or hear the word "moral"? A sinner's morals are a saint's deadly sins.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No. The Foundation should never put istelf in the position of a fiduciary to its subjects, nor should it morally do so, such would be completely contrary to its mission, and a massive COI. Also, its Wikipedia project does "take care" by requiring NPOV, V and NOR. You may wish to begin proposals for change by acknowledging that and whatever happens, it cannot become a fiduciary for the people or things it writes about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

All I am saying is that just as the Foundation has a responsibility to its donors, it also has a responsibility to the public, including those members of the public who are written about here. I consider these absolutely equal. JN466 11:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we would necessarily need academics or WMF to do the type of study suggested. It would not 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)

Did you drop a "not" because you are not advertising it very well :) Good luck though! Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Er, yeah. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Difficult to measure imbalance, omitted truth: When BLP text is slanted by "sins of omission" then that can be almost impossible to measure. Most people, attempting to study BLP quality, would naturally focus on incorrect statements in a page, rather than measuring the level of omitted, corrective information. As a recent example, a French official was accused of assaulting a maid in a New York hotel, and several sources postulated that it could have been a conspiracy, where the maid was working with other people to make the overall event seem incriminating. A few people tried to add that sourced text to the article, but other editors kept rapidly removing that aspect of balanced viewpoints to main a "pro-guilt" slant in the text. Eventually, the maid was linked to some conspiracy group and her credibility (as a witness) was ruined, so the assault charges were dropped. Too bad Wikipedia could not allow a suspect to be considered "not guilty" (or "innocente" in Italy) and instead dwell only on incriminating text; but that example explains the severe difficulty of measuring BLP quality, when unwritten viewpoints cannot be seen in the article, unless comparing dozens of prior revisions, where truthful editors were able to slip balanced text into a article, if only for a brief fleeting moment of truth. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} Fæ (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"All I know is what I read in the papers". -Wikid77 07:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this sort of assessment is quite tricky, and requires a person who knows quite a bit about the biography subject before beginning the assessment. Otherwise, you will have the assessor deriving all their knowledge about the person from the article they are supposed to assess. You get this situation in AfDs sometimes. A biography subject will complain about being painted as a crank (or religious nut, crook, etc.); and then people in the AfD – who had never heard of the subject before, have not verified the cited sources or researched the wider pool of sources, but have read the article nominated for deletion – will say, or think, "But he is a crank! He just doesn't like us telling the world!" The irony should be obvious here.

Recall the Klee Irwin articles for example: [13][14] Each one is reasonably convincing in its way, or at least leaves a strong impression. Each one makes you feel you now "know" something about Klee Irwin. It's quite possible (I haven't checked) that each article version is "well sourced" in the sense that the cited sources say what the article is saying. But unless the assessor has an overview of what sources are out there, he or she can't really make a useful assessment. This is the case with any controversial figure, and more so with relatively unknown ones. Depending on what sources a Wikipedian selects, they can make the person sound heroic or demonic, and the ability to put forward a point of view, and have your writing widely read, is of course a key factor in attracting people to contribute in Wikipedia in the first place. (In my personal opinion, these two – i.e. being able to affect the POV presented at the number 1 Google link for anything and anyone, and/or the sense of personal achievement derived from writing something that will be widely read, are far more important motivators for Wikipedia content creators than the altruistic motives usually put forward.)

If a BLP study is made, I would very much recommend that non-Wikipedians, who have not internalised the particular Wikipedia mindset that produces these biographies and can look at them with the eyes of an outsider, should be involved. I would propose that the study should focus on

• BLPs watched by less than 30 people, and BLPs watched by less than 15 people
• detection of libellous content
• compliance with Wikpedia's own WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP policies, as well as WP:COATRACK issues.

I also think the study would need quite a substantial sample size. Content that is clearly and unquestionably libelous is, I believe, relatively rare outside of very short-lived vandalism. But we have around 600,000 biographies of living people. If, for argument's sake, only one in 500 were so libelous that the subject would have grounds to sue, that would mean that Wikipedia has 1,200 such biographies. JN466 10:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you have to live with the fact that an assessor is typically not going to be knowledgeable about the subject of an article she is assessing, because if you did anything else your sampling would not be random and your results would be next to worthless.

If editors were to undertake the research - not that it looks like there will be a flood of volunteers - any concerns over in-house bias could be dealt with by making the data from the assessments publicly available and inviting review. Formerip (talk) 13:51, 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)

I also have an equally radical proposal and my tongue is nowhere near my cheek. Based on my past experience with the havoc that can be unleashed by newbie and (even worse IMO) hit-and-run editors on Troubles-related articles, I propose that Wikipedians who wish to edit a Troubles-related page must have at least 100 edits. It's known that all Troubles artilces are under the IRR, but this doesn't prevent the articles being ransacked just short of vandalism. Nor does it prevent the edit wars which can often outdo in bloodletting and futility those battles fought during the Wars of the Roses Comments?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I would advocate pending changes on all of these articles, which has much the same effect as the one you're looking for. Let's not forget that many Wikipedias, including the German one (>1 million articles), have had pending changes for years, on all articles, across the board. And it really does cut out a lot of the drive-by vandalism. (The way PC in German Wikipedia works is that logged-in editors see unapproved changes, while the public only sees the last approved version.) --JN466 12:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no, pending changes on Troubles-related articles is NOT the answer as you'd have to create an elite cadre of editors allowed to see the changes before the unwashed masses do. And who would this special unit consist of? I was thinking more along the lines of protection for these pages, so that only established editors are allowed to make edits. But no way Jose would I advocate pending changes. My proposal wouldn't scare away newbies, it would just compel them to build up a decent editing history that does not include edit warring, etc..--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) PC was never "an elite cadre of editors." Anyone logged in is able to see the edits. And IIRC, anyone autoconfirmed was to have the ability to "promote" the edits to be viewable to all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

But who has the authority to decide whether or not these changes are to be retained in the article? Any logged-in user? By placing the Troubles-related articles under protection we would have less vandalism and it would go a long way in preventing the mess I had to clean up last month made by a hit-and-run editor who hadn't made one single edit in 22 months. Lucky me, he made his comeback by removing an entire section of sourced information from a Troubles article which is currently a hot topic! I had to restore it manually.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My experience from the death anomalies project is that newbies will often accurately update Bios of the newly deceased. I wouldn't want to stop that. We do need better ways to identify vandalism but they need to be ones that work with our ethos not against it. ϢereSpielChequers 12:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

really radical counter proposal "invisibly flagged revisions"

A lot of people want us to raise our game and be more effective at dealing with vandalism, either to protect BLPs or to protect the three million other articles where nasty stuff can sneak through. But flagged revisions and pending changes are controversial because they are seen as offputting to newbies. So why not implement flagged revisions in a way that newbies don't even need to know its there? If only editors with admin or reviewer flags get to see which edits have been marked as flagged or not then we could transform recent changes, patrollers would be able to choose to check edits that no-one else had checked and we'd stop having bunches of edits get through unobserved when recent changes is quiet. One of the words I patrol is Pubic, so I know that some petty vandalism gets through recent changes every week, if we implemented "invisibly flagged revisions" on the whole of mainspace then we could painlessly and easily plug the current gaps at recent changes. No-one knows how many gaps we currently have at recent changes, and even if we knew that not enough people were patrolling recent changes from 3.20 to 3.45 this morning there is no way of going back and checking just the ones that no-one looked at. But with "invisibly flagged revisions", as with any flagged revisions implementation, it is easy to see which revisions are still unflagged. ϢereSpielChequers 12:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to check that I understand the proposal correctly: Do you mean that changes would still go live immediately, but be flagged as unsighted in a way that is only visible to logged-in editors, until they have been reviewed?

Note that there is an ongoing RfC on reintroducing pending changes:Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012 --JN466 12:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes the edits would go live as now, I'm neutral as to whether the flagging would be visible to all autoconfirmed editors or just to reviewers and admins. As for the "RFC" I'm aware of it, but it isn't a real RFC, more a referendum on certain predefined positions. The people running that vote have explicitly ruled out any attempt to build consensus and come up with a solution we can all live with. ϢereSpielChequers 13:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And another example: Otis Ferry

How about the current version of the Otis Ferry biography? This is a 650-word biography, and over three-quarters of it is devoted to a meticulous chronicling of minor "arrests, charges and court appearances". More than half of these cases resulted in no charge or an acquittal.

Now, Mr Ferry is an avid supporter of fox hunting (a horrid pastime in my view), and it is quite possible that the editor(s) who made it their business to add these 500 words on his arrests, charges and court appearances do not agree with his stance. JN466 12:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any indication that Ferry wants his article completely removed or that he would rather have it completely removed than some other option like permanently locked? yes this is a case illustrating that we have BLP problem, but not one that yourTarc's proposal would necessarily actually fix or one that other proposals might fix in a much better way. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what Mr Ferry's wishes would be if he were made aware of the state of the article, or if he is aware of it. But I maintain that pending changes, and restriction of the right to approve BLP edits to editors with a known track record of impartiality and commitment to upholding BLP policy, might be able to prevent articles like that building up over time. --JN466 12:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the real solution. Approval rights should be easy to get and easy to lose if abused. Like rollback rights (not sure that is the best example but you know what I mean). --Lyncs (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

or changing the protection policy for BLP articles that after issues the presumption is in favor of continued protection and more open editing would be required to make its case.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article, but I think it is fair to say that Otis Ferry is most notable for his criminal record. Formerip (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That's one way to put it. Now imagine (difficult, depending on your views) that he's an activist of a different viewpoint, one with which you agree. Imagine, for example, he's an activist with the same sort of track record of arrests whose protest is in favor of a ban on fox hunting. Would you then say that he "is most notable for his criminal record" or would you say that he "is most notable for his activism and civil disobedience"? Now, using that same lens, take a look at the article. It's a pretty absurd article in that it indiscriminately mixes his peaceful arrests during peaceful protests and actual (but minor) criminal behavior such as driving under the influence of alcohol.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you should look at the article. And compare what is considered Trivia to what is considered really really important. --Lyncs (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Trivia is bringing individual examples of possible BLP violations to the discussion in the first place. Nobody denies that they exist. Formerip (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, I think examples of poor articles are very useful for all of us, because it's worthwhile to study them and see what exactly went wrong so that we can think sensibly about measures to fix them (or get rid of them).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think examples are useful in the context of a discussion about BLP violations. Everybody knows that they occur and what they look like, and individual examples don't tell us anything new about what we might do on a systematic level. Still, it's your talkpage, so if you want to carry on looking at examples it's up to you. Formerip (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

An example was proffered. Rather than look at the subject article and address the issue(s) with it or say, as you say now, that looking at individual examples is pointless, you chose to comment on Mr. Ferry's notoriety without regard for the article. Which is a discussion that is pointless here. As may be inferred from Jimbo's comment, notoriety is in the eye of the beholder. Just sayin' --Lyncs (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to be repetitive, because I've made similar comments above and in related discussions. BLP violations are a good thing to have constructive discussion about, but a bad thing to engage in drama over, which is what the drip, drip of "look, I've found another one" might be mistaken for being about. Message received, already. Formerip (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Simultaneously draconian and insufficient

The draconian aspects of this proposal should be obvious. NPOV will be compromised because BLP subjects can use the threat of deleting their articles entirely to force the removal of any unflattering material whatsoever. Imagine what articles such as Rick Santorum would look like when purged of any sourced criticism. Yet the proposal is insufficient to accomplish its stated objective of preventing BLP violations against subjects who opt out. Even with no BLPs at at all, Wikipedia would still contain information about living people in other articles unless NPOV were massively compromised. Could Santorum request not only the deletion of his biography, but the removal of his name from articles about the Republican presidential primary? The nature of a website as openly accessible as Wikipedia ensures that regardless of what policies we have in place, BLP violations can and will appear. Flagged revisions would stop the most obvious offenses but may not prevent bias and undue weight. Therefore, I suggest that we stop presenting material about living people as more credible than it is. When someone reads an article linked from search engine results, they don't see the "anyone can edit" language that appears on the main page. The preface simply states that the article is "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" while leaving our disclaimer about potentially inaccurate content buried at the bottom of the page. Since most large websites have some sort of disclaimer composed of boilerplate legal language, most people won't read ours, assuming that they make it to the end of the article at all. It would be prudent to introduce articles with "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", to alert the reader to potential inaccuracies or bias in biographies. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with "Insufficient" and to a certain extent "draconian" (though in spite of that I support as measures short of draconian have not been enough). However, I disagree with your strawman on Rick Santorum. First of all, as one of the most polarizing individuals in U.S. politics, Santorum's article insofar it exists is going to attract a lot of watchers and editors. That will promote better adherence to NPOV and other policies. Our biggest problem is BLPs of much less prominent individuals, who may (in some cases arguably) meet our notability bar but where the attention span and interest of active editors of the article will be grossly imbalanced in favour of either whitewashers or axe-grinder. Second, while -- all considering -- our article on Santorum is not bad at all (congrats!), it would in my opinion be better if purged of (sourced) criticism as well as drastically shortened to avoid the unavoidably partisan in inherently non-NPOV exercise of framing his political beliefs. In particular, the editorial selection of what is covered in the "Criticism" section reeks of coatracking: The real primary controversy about him is the beliefs he espouses; the inclusion at the same level of what school district asked him to repay what tuition fees, regardless of how well sourced, can only be explained as a desire of one "side" to increase the prominence in the public eye of potentially damaging information harnessing the eyeballs that Wikipedia provides. If I were Mr. Santorum, I would actually trust the wikipedia editorial process to over time get this right in his case; but should Mr. Santorum prefer to not have a biography with us all, I maintain we should accede to his wishes. We would continue to cover the truly relevant bits at Rick_Santorum_presidential_campaign,_2012 -- where, you are right, BLP violations could be introduced, but the bar is higher for proving their relevance. Mr. Santorum's dispute over $72k in school fees would last only in so far as it played a pivotal role in his campaign. And while it would be sad to lose the factual and NPOV information on him as an individual, those desiring it could doubtless find it out elsewhere on the internet. There is no shame to confessing that our model is not the optimal one for maintaining and delivering even nonobjectionable material. Disclaimer: I'm not actually a US resident and I don't think much of Mr. Santorum's policies. Martinp (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Intrusive private life sections

• See [15]: Do we need this much detail on what his ex-wife thinks about him and his staff?

  After eight years of marriage, the two separated, finalizing their divorce in the summer of 2009. Reports have noted that the divorce was an amicable one and the two remain close friends.[45]
  However, in 2010, Chicago Magazine interviewed Vertolli, who said that despite their friendship, she would not support her ex-husband for Senate. She said that a female staffer named Dodie McCracken asserts a "Svengali-like" influence over Kirk, and that she refused to have McCracken at their 2001 wedding, because "Mark could either stay married to me, or she could find another place. But there wasn’t enough room for the two of us to stay in Mark’s life." She then said that despite the 2001 snub, McCracken never distanced herself from Kirk and worked on his 2010 Senate campaign in addition to her earlier work as a staffer. Asked by the interviewer, "Is there any kind of insinuation that there’s any kind of romance going on between them?" Vertolli responded, "I will not characterize their relationship." Asked, "was it political differences that contributed to you and Mark divorcing?" she responded, "I think that if Dodie McCracken had not continued to be in our lives, we probably would still be married."[46] In the same interview, Vertolli denied persistent rumors that Kirk is gay.[46]

  --JN466 14:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is the consensus that this level of detail is appropriate? How does it sit against the BLP resolution: "Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest"? Should we be converting the content of a blog on a lifestyle magazine's website into permanent encyclopedic content in this manner? JN466 11:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think all these Tabloid-like statements regarding his ex-wife's opinions need to be in the article. IMO, nothing more should be added after "and the two remain close friends".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with you. --JN466 11:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

False report of fatal illness

In this case on the BLP noticeboard, we reported at least twice, for a total of 8 months, that the BLP subject had been diagnosed with a fatal illness. The edit was completely unsourced. No one but the subject, who was getting concerned enquiries from relatives and acquaintances, noticed.

Please let's apply pending changes to all minor BLPs. JN466 19:00, 13 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)

Yes indeed. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The generalization is that a number of people agree that what has been done to it is correct and it is okay and apply the same logic elsewhere. Dmcq (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Except for the fact that people are talking on the talk page to see how they can cover those topics while sticking with Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm sure that won't impact your opinion though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 11 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 WT:FRINGE, 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)

That touches on what is probably the biggest problem with Wikipedia, the problem of exhaustion by POV pushers as one can only normally get banned for incivility or sockpuppeting or something like that. Even in cases like this it might be better to have rubbish content protected for six months at a time rather than have the dreadful personal attacks and wikilawyering you get from some experienced editors trying to get the ones they don't like banned for responding with something they can be sent to AN/I for. With less overall hassle perhaps experienced editors wouldn't engage in such behaviour and the whole business could be dealt with a bit more rationally. This street brawling turns good editors away. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Track per-article edit-limits: Dmcq, I see what you're saying, and I think the best solution is to count edit-limits on a per-article basis. The "wp:Wikiphysics" of POV-pushing requires many edits to an article or talk-page (far beyond typical editing), so if suspicious editors could be nominated (by anyone) for counting their total edits against a per-article limit, then each entrenched editor would get auto-blocked at the monthly/quarterly limit of ranting on an article. The reason this tactic could work so easily is due to the power of wp:AGF, where in any large group of editors, it is safe to assume they edit, in good faith, and move on, but the troublesome editors dwell and obsess (with numerous edits), and once spotted, they could be nominated for retro-counting their edits against a per-article limit. There are so few (among the 3,500 highly active editors), that only edit-limiting the specifically nominated editors should be easy to track, and once the concept had spread, of shutting down the rants, then fewer editors would continue trying that tactic on other articles. There might need to be a special provision for per-category edit-limits, if people tried wp:Gaming the system (by switching to related articles near the edit-limit). Also, I would recommend tracking per-wp:TAGTEAM edit-limits, where some people edit in tandem, and all edits by a team could be counted together, as nominated by someone who senses a team effort. Initially, even the excessive totals could be reported by users who counted other edits. This does not require waiting 20 years for the MediaWiki software to count per-article edits. Anyway, it is amazing what computer-assisted management can accomplish, once unhealthy patterns are spotted in the computerized transactions in the history log. -Wikid77 04:37, 12 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)

sorry gave wrong wrong link, here: WT:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

@Blockinblox: Here is my take on what fringe science is. Cardamon (talk) 08:24, 11 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)

Umm, did you read it? Like, maybe, the part where he compares man's harelessness to that of hippos, or where he says he imagines that they "spent at least half his time on the land", which also means he envisions them spending as much as half their time in the water. He compares man to otters, whales, dugongs and manatees, hippopotamus, seals, beavers, penguins - swimming animals, not wading ones, cannot come away from that thinking he just envisioned them as only wading. Specifically, "Man gradually went farther and farther into deeper water; swimming for a time, but having at intervals to rest - resting with his feet on the bottom and his head out of the surface . . . He would have to raise his head out of the water to feed." That ain't just wading. I mean, he suggests that no fossils survive because "Man struggled and died in the sea". An adaption of breathing was posited (and though not expressed here, a shift in copulatory position) - if when you wade, you find your head under water enough that you have to evolve a new way of regulating breathing, you probably aren't doing it right (and if you find yourself using the missionary position while wading, you might want to reevaluate that as well, but to each his own). Man was "cradled in the sea" - in, not by. As to people shooting their mouth off "without knowing the basics", well, perhaps the less said the better, then, eh? Agricolae (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The comparisons were with such animals because they show the adaptations best. He certainly did outline the possibility of people doing more, but if you will read the paragraph starting with 'My thesis is' that gives his main thesis. The bits you are talking about are after 'it seems indeed possible' which is his wider speculation. Lots of articles are structured like that to have a more speculative bit near the end. The thesis includes diving for shell fish but people who do that nowadays are hardly 'more like a walrus'. The furthest extent of the thesis bit is 'and then, with increasing skill, capturing fish with his hands'. Now I have seen people actually doing that sort of thing, we even have an article on a variant trout tickling but eels were the ones I saw being caught, and I have no problem swimming twice the length of a swimming pool underwater so exactly what is so unbelievable about it all? I am happy to accept that it is fringe and have it debunked but what I would like to see in Wikipedia is some description rather than total suppression. With actual details there it would have been possible to easily correct misapprehensions like that it said people swam like walruses when it specifically says otherwise in 'It may be objected that children have to be taught to swim; but the same is true of young otters, and I should regard them as more aquatic than Man has been'. Dmcq (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course the comparisons were made because they show the adaptions - that is the entire point of the argument: these are aquatic animals and they show these adaptions. Humans show these adaption, therefor,. . . . That being said, the place for a discussion of this specific theory is on the relevant Talk page. If I'm not mistaken, this was to be a meta discussion about 'suppression' of opposing viewpoints. This diversion does, however, demonstrate the challenge of explaining a 'hypothesis' that never saw mainstream attention except as a passing curiosity, and never received a formal peer-reviewed formulation. What exactly the hypothesis entailed or entails (not necessarily the same thing) beyond the general description already given, that the article should be explaining if only it weren't for the supposed conspiracy of silence, is very much in the eyes of the beholder. Yes, some of the proponents (at least in the early 1980s) did in fact portray humans as being largely aquatic, such that they even mated en aqua. Particularly in recent times, with the supposed gap in the terrestrial fossil record all but vanished, others have them wading for seafood and only occasionally sticking their head underwater (which makes it hard to explain the degree of adaption that originally underpinned the hypothesis, but that, again, is not a discussion for here) with any example of humans living anywhere near water as further 'evidence'. Its lack of formal formulation lets it be described as anything, and nothing, and everything in between. The meta issue here is how to reflect such amorphous pseudo-scholarly 'theories' that exist so much on the fringe that they receive no detailed formulation or rebuttal. Curiously, there is a noticeboard that is tasked with assisting on just such a question. Agricolae (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"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"

That's such a bizarre tangent that I have no idea what on Earth you're talking about. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be trying to suggest that one who 'has to object' to the AAH without really even understanding it is thus expressing a pseudo-religious belief. Analogous to the 'evolution is just another religion' mantra that the creationists use to create a false equivalency, only here apparently intended to dismiss such 'pseudo-religious' skepticism as the inferior to open-minded unbiased credulity. But I could be wrong. Agricolae (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That was how I took it as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You said the hypothesis was closer to people being like walruses. I thought you were talking from ignorance of what was written rather than that you had read and misunderstood something about it. I'll try and be more straightforward in future and avoid such suppositions. Dmcq (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well some of the more recent AAH type proposals are not that simplistic and propose mixed brachiating/wading scenarios. [20]. The main problem is still that they seek to derive a suite of adaptations from a single environmental feature. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought the main problem was it posited two changes, one to more dependence on the water and then back again to less dependence. Plus does one actually need it to explain the features? One cause for a number of features is good, not bad, evolution adapts fastest for the main stressor.Dmcq (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No one cause for a number of features is bad because it is always wrong and evolution doesn't work like that generally. Serious paleoanthropologists sytopped proposing single cause hypotheses some decades ago - that is also what made the "Savanna hypothesis" obsolete. Phillip Tobias has an interesting article about that actually. Human evolution is a complex mosaic process not a single cause and effect - no single cause hypothesis can account for the observed fossil record.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got that the wrong way round. One should try for a smaller number of causes first as being more likely as per Occam's razor. That one is unable to explain all the features from one cause the reason to see what more is necessary. Things will very often be more complex than the simplest idea, and one should check out other things even then, but that is not a reason to say that single causes are bad explanations. Dmcq (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes I know that's how it works in math. Single causes are not bad explanations if they explain all the evidence - none do so far which is why paleoanthropologists now work to explain one trait at a time. AAH fares particularly poorly in that regard by not being supported by any of the fossil evidence.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:56, 11 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 [21] 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)

You actually found a line that began to go towards an explanation? Dmcq (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your snark is not helpful. The article does explain the hypothesis. You've made it clear that you just don't like the explanation sticking to the scientific mainstream. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying 'The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH) is a hypothesis about human evolution, which posits that the ancestors of modern humans spent a period of time adapting to life in a wet environment' is not an explanation of the theory any more than 'The endurance running hypothesis is the theory that the evolution of certain human characteristics can be explained as adaptations to long-distance running.' is an explanation of Endurance running hypothesis. As explanation says "An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts", and definition is "A definition is a passage that explains the meaning of a term (a word, phrase or other set of symbols), or a type of thing." The article has no explanation of the hypothesis just that bald definition. We have the fact that the aquatic ape hypothesis was proposed as a reasonable hypothesis. The article give no indication whatsoever of why. Dmcq (talk) 17:54, 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)

That's a sound enough thought, but the case of the AAH is covered by at least one "serious reference work", namely the conference proceedings edited by Machteld Roede et al (given in the article references). I don't think it's available on-line, however, so some of the editors here may not have easy access to it unless they're willing to buy it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So the topic was the subject of an obscure conference in 1991, the proceedings of which seem to have had zero impact on independent scientific discourse? I think that proves my point about the obscurity of this topic, and the consequent difficulty of covering it encyclopedically. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Try a Google scholar search of "Aquatic ape" since 2000 [22]. You can also search books by latest date first [23]. But that's not the main point. As the section title says "This article does not explain the topic it debunks". Even if it was total bunkum if it is notable then there should still be some details about the main points. Dmcq (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Silver seren, I agree the back and forth is ugly, but how else to deal with it? The theory is simple (but not parsimonious, see John Hawks' blog post) but the details of the lines of evidence are both myriad and pretty thoroughly discredited. Nearly every claim made has had some criticism ventured, often extensive criticism. But where do we put it? Ghettoize it in a "Criticisms" section like this version? Stuff them together like this version? Leave them out completely like the current version? No matter what, there will always be a long mass of rebuttals to these points, because when scholars have examined specific lines of evidence, they've come up wanting. It's like a Gish gallop - it's easy to point to some fact as if it supported your theory, it's a lot harder, more time consuming and takes a lot more space to do the research and find out what scholars actually think about the topic (and on wikipedia you run into WP:OR that prevents you from pointing out when a statement of fact is just wrong). I think there's a legitimate debate to be had on what level of detail to include, I think there's multiple possible right answers, but there's really only two choices - eliminate the lines of evidence completely (my preference) or spend a quarter of the page bringing them up and three quarters shooting them down because the actual experts think the idea is hooey (or don't think about it at all). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Various editors have different abilities, some are good at getting the facts, some are better at organizing, some are better at making the prose good. How about calling for someone with the ability to organize if you're not able to do that bit? Dmcq (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The first page of google scholar doesn't appear to have any scientific papers from evolutionary biologists published in relevant journals, besides the one from User:AlgisKuliukas. The google books results also appears to refer mostly to passing mentions in books. the first book, of about 800 pages called "Primate Sexuality, Comparative studies of the prosimians, Monkeys, Apes, and Humans" [24] for example mentions the hypothesis without elaboration, and then mentions a specific detail which is not conistent with the hypothesis "nor are they consistent with the hypothesis that ventro-ventral copulation evolved as part of a suite of adaptions enabling human ancestors to live in aquatic enviroments", that is all. The next two books appear to be a novel and a duplicate. The fourth makes no mention of aquatic apes beyond a reference to a criticism of a (rather embarassing) data handling error. [25]. This seems consistent with it being obscure. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If you stick "Special relativity" in you don't get much better, you have to check a few pages if you want something good with scholar search. I was just showing the person how to do a search rather than assume because they were shown something from 1991 there was nothing later.. I don't have easy access to the actual papers there but even on the first page I don't see what was wrong with [26] and [27] or why [28] from Algis Kuliukas should be dismissed. As to the books I'm perfectly well aware that the hypothesis has mainly been rejected, so what's new in that the first book doesn't agree with it? The problem as the section title says is 'This article does not explain the topic it debunks'. And the idea that this is a reasonable way to treat things that are not mainstream and putting in any explanation past a brief definition of the topic is a concession. Dmcq (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it wasn't rejected but note that it's an original research paper that is 3 years old but it has zero citations. This suggests the paper hasn't made it into the scientific discourse (nor within a minority AAH following), so I'm not sure of its value for the article. The book that was rejected was the vanity press publication he had been promoting on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources?

I haven't looked at what sources are used in the article or what discussions have been done on the talk page, but i'm just going to do a simple list of the stuff I find. Now, clearly, papers from the Medical Hypotheses journal don't count for much, because of the lack of peer review. But there seems to be other papers than just those, such as:

• Wetlands or Aquatic Ape? Availability of Food Resources - Nutrition and Health
• The paranasal sinuses and other enigmas: an aquatic evolutionary theory - Journal of Laryngology and Otology
• Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? - New Scientist (one of the original articles by the originator Alister Hardy)
• Evolution of nakedness in Homo sapiens - Journal of Zoology (this one is really nice, as it lists a number of other authors that wrote on the subject and the years of publication. Good starting point to search for more articles?)
• The Importance of Energy and Nutrient Supply in Human Brain Evolution - Nutrition and Health
• Aquarboreal ancestors? - Trends in Ecology and Evolution
• Aquatic Versus Savanna: Comparative and Paled-Environmental Evidence - Nutrition and Health

Okay, that's enough for now. There's tons more I could give, but i'm tired. I think the point is made though that there are tons of articles that can be used. Silverseren^C 01:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There's already enough sources to get past even the most stringent filter, if there weren't the article would have been deleted. The problem is that sticking anything at all like that into such articles is considered a concession by a number of people as seen above. More sources means more debate with mainstream rebuttal in the article which is bad style and considered a reason for deleting everything. Your sources would provide extra details about the theory and that is considered gish gallop and itself a reason for deleting everything. Any variations are considered as evidence that there's no clearly formulated idea or that such sources aren't relevant - which often means ruling out later studies. There basic question that needs to be answered is whether an article about a notable topic should always contain details about the topic irrespective of whether it is considered mainstream or not. Dmcq (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no question the article should remain, it's certainly well past notability. The issue is that it's overall simply not credible within the scholarly community. Individual sources can be pointed to where the authors support it, but sources which cover the field as a whole simply don't give it much, if any space. The issue of nutrition (which in my opinion is of dubious relevance to the hypothesis overall) is one of the issues I proposed we include, but note it too has counter-explanations and is only superficially convincing (human needs for so-called "aquatic" fats are quite low, easily met by consuming marrow, brains and certain plant fats, and humans without access to aquatic foods develop normal intelligence; alternative explanations for the human brain's energy needs includes the use of fire to increase the nutritional value of food, scavenging, tool use permitting greater access to marrow). In my mind there is a line between describing the theory (which the page does) and enumerating every single line of evidence ever thought to substantiate the theory - the line between describing the theory and advocating for it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, your immediate dismissal of the sources is concerning. A strong opinion on a subject should be carefully managed if one is going to be editing that subject, because a strong opinion can very easily fall into advocacy, either for or against. What we should be doing is writing an article on the subject that takes into account the views on it in reliable sources. And a scientific article in a mainstream journal is one of the strongest types of sources we have. So, no matter your opinion on "aquatic fats", it and all the other theories in relation to this hypothesis that are presented in high quality reliable sources should be included in the article. That doesn't mean we report it as true, no, but that does mean we record all of the science behind it at the time it was being considered, even if that science has now been disproved. Silverseren^C 16:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

But I've also spent a lot of time reading and editing the article, thus I've seen the many sources that are explicitly critical, as well as looked into many secondary and tertiary sources on human evolution that simply don't mention it. If the major textbooks and general reference books on paleontology don't mention the AAH, should we spend a lot of time going into the evidence? If my error was in not providing sources that make these points, then I can do so - these aren't my opinions, these are the opinions of scholars who have published on the topic. Rantala, which you cite above, is actually quite dismissive of the theory:

...it is therefore difficult to reconcile the hairless condition of humans with an aquatic existence. A naked mammal of the shape and size of the early hominids – or modern humans – would have found maintaining a high body temperature in the sea energetically very expensive. Even those species of comparable body mass that inhabit warm tropical freshwater bodies have retained a thick coat. There is, furthermore, no fossil evidence to support the aquatic ape hypothesis. It is not very realistic to claim that humans have ever lived such a totally aquatic life as those marine mammals that have shed their fur. It is more likely that our ancestors lived on the shore and caught their food offshore by wading and diving. Humans would naturally have returned to the beach to sleep, and would have spent most of their time ashore. At night, insulating fur would have been an advantage.

Langdon, 1997 states:

Morgan ties brain expansion to an ideal balance of fatty acids (a 50:50 ratio of Omega-6 to Omega-3 fatty acids) needed by the brain that is most easily obtained from the marine food chain (1990: p. 169). However, a worldwide preponderance of landlocked peoples attests to the fact that a marine diet is not nutritionally essential.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17546613 Carlson & Kingston, 2007] says:

In our report investigating links between omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids and hominin encephalization, we concluded that the regular consumption of aquatic resources rich in preformed DHA may not have been essential given a varied diet of wild terrestrial foods (Carlson and Kingston [2007]). This assessment was based primarily on evidence of potential physiological adaptations in modern humans to ensure sufficient availability of DHA during critical periods of brain growth. While modern human physiology provides critical information regarding DHA as a constraint in evolving a large brain, it is also important to consistently contextualize interpretations within a framework of eclectic foraging diets rather than nutritionally limited modern agricultural populations or even modern foragers. We contend that current interpretations of Pleistocene hominin nutritional ecology do not uniquely support a shore-based foraging niche as claimed by Cunnane et al. ([2007]: Am J Hum Biol, 19:578-581). Specific issues raised in response to our article by Cunnane et al. and Joordens et al. ([2007]: Am J Hum Biol, 19:582-584) are addressed here.

Milton, 2000, responding to and citing work by Cunnane, says:

The brains, flesh, liver, tongue, marrow, and other parts of wild terrestrial mammals would have served as a concentrated source of many essential nutrients required by early humans, including LCPUFAs

and also has many other specific criticisms (it's freely available if you're interested in reading the whole letter). I'm not immediately dismissing the sources out of personal preference or ideology. I've read, and added, many of the sources on the AAH page. I've spent a lot of time trying to find sources that address the theory overall, within the general context of paleontology. The best I can tell is that it's simply seen as an interesting but not particularly promising theory. That's the issue I have with the page - it's quite easy to point to individual sources that discuss and promote it. It's impossible to point to broad overviews of the field of human evolution that discuss it at length or as anything but a trivial side-reference tangential to their overall topic. I didn't recently come upon the page, I'm the most frequent editor on the page by a considerable margin [29]. I've done a lot of reading on this, and come up with many sources that talk about how it gets much popular but little professional attention [30], [31], [32], and paleoanthropologists who work in the field simply don't see it as useful [33], [34], [35]. I'm genuinely torn on the topic, because I feel discussing all the alleged evidence gives the page the feel that the hypothesis is unjustly discarded, including all as well as the criticisms produces a very long page that is either back-and-forth or ghettoized (and therefore a problem according to WP:STRUCTURE) while giving none is objected to by many experienced editors and not in line with WP:FRINGE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, consider this new paper in PNAS which discusses early hominin diet, including aquatic animals. No mention of the "aquatic ape hypothesis", no citation of Morgan, a couple references to authors cited on the AAH [36]. The AAH itself has noted that there are people interested in a modified, diluted (so-to-speak) version of the AAH generally focusing on diet, but these don't tend to reference Morgan (the main popular proponent) or use the terms "aquatic ape". Are they still talking about the AAH? Can they be cited? Is the fact that fish is good for us something to be noted on the page? The AAH is a weird topic, the hypothesis itself has multiple shades of meaning and proponents, as well as serious scientists studying human evolution as impacted by water who don't mention the AAH or its popular proponents. More experienced contributors would be welcome, if nothing else than to help navigate these quite thorny problems. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is very little point quoting some stuff to us here on Jimbo's talkpage. It should be in the article if anywhere. I am glad that you are now talking about things you propose should be included rather than talking about concessions. I don't see that the Rantala quote, just to take the first one, really is against the aquatic ape hypothesis except in the extreme form of the end of Hardy's article where he had further suppositions beyond the thesis, he certainly did not envisage people spending most of their time in the water. Most otters spend less than a quarter of their time in the water and Hardy specifically said he did not envisage people being as aquatic as otters and he definitely knew about otters. It does look like Rantala has taken the very extreme version of the hypothesis and I would be interested in when what Hardy wrote got changed into as aquatic as a walrus or suchlike creature. Overall though this is not to the point here. The discussion is about the general business of writing stuff up for people to read. That you have read up about the topic is no good to anybody who reads the article if all you do is delete and debunk. Dmcq (talk) 23:01, 12 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" [37] 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)

I agree with this 100%; it would be even better if it were automated so that pages without sources for a certain amount of time would get tagged by a bot. It would be nice if this were the policy on en.wp but I'm not holding my breath. SÆdon^talk 07:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be a big step in shifting from Verifiable to Verified. But would it be a logical step? Currently we only require a source for new articles if the subject is a BLP, so changing the page creation process to tell people that all articles must cite a source and then broadening BLPprod to all new unsourced articles would be a more logical step. Continuing to accept new unsourced articles whilst making it easier for deletionists to delete them sounds to me like a recipe for newbie biting. ϢereSpielChequers 08:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, quite so, I agree wiuth Truby King: "It is better to put a fence at the top of a cliff than to station an ambulance at the bottom". We don't have a hospital waiting at the bottom. We have a cemetery of unmarked graves. Dmcq (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Good analogy. It should be possible to change the page creation process so that it asks people for their sources. Once we've got that process working well enough that no one creating unsourced articles still thinks their contributions are welcome, then we could move to the second step of extending sticky prod to all new unsourced. The third step of dealing with the backlog is something to ponder once we've got the first two steps working smoothly. One of the mistakes of the 2010 deletion spree was to start at step three and our mistake in responding with BLPprod was only to move to step 2. If we want this place to be less of a space invaders game and more of an encyclopaedia then we need the content standards that we are successfully communicating to our goodfaith editors to be high enough to stop their work being target practice for deletionists. ϢereSpielChequers 12:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You've no chance chums (hollow laugh). If the developers refused to implement a slight delay in allowing new editors to create an article, they will never support this even if Jimbo himself backs it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes the devs vetoed WP:ACTRIAL, but ACTRIAL was a deeply flawed and contentious proposal. I don't dispute that it had a clear majority support here on EN wiki, but even its supporters would concede that simply stopping all new editors from creating articles would have had a false positive rate of well over 20%. We remove Rollback and block bots at far lower error rates than that, if an admin had an error rate that high then surely Arbcom would desysop them. Of course getting the first step on this would be difficult both to spec and to write. But it isn't a million miles from stuff they are currently working on. ϢereSpielChequers 12:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Cynicism aside, I think it would certainly help to force page creation in article space through a template that asks the user to add the main source(s) of the information. But I bet we never see it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as a fyi to all following, in ptwiki there is now a (big) debate about if we should remove information not referenced or not. (actually it is painted as if anyone removing unsourced information is seriously damaging wikipedia). Chico Venancio (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mimi Macpherson

Hi , for your information, as you were involved and as I understand it, had some discussion with the subject - while the person/article was being discussed on your talkpage , User:Nikkimaria unprotected it and recreated it - it was speedily deleted and is currently at deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review#Mimi Macpherson where the deletion currently looks like being overturned. - Youreallycan 13:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Kindly withdraw your bad-faith accusation and review the actual purpose of DRV. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Good faith is not a blind person - if you want to use your admin powers for controversial actions in an WP:INVOLVED manner then expect criticism for it - in fact - many users despise such WP:INVOLVED use of advanced privileges so I suggest you watch out moving forward for good faith editors requesting removal of your advanced privileges - we have more than enuf disruptive vandal accounts without disruptive admin accounts as well. Youreallycan 18:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've heard enough of your opinion now. If you want to request removal of my admin bit, you know how to do it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I am simply at the top of the list, if others follow for continued violations then expect me to be there. - Youreallycan 19:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The page should never have been protected in the deleted version i.e. "salted" by Nuclear Warfare, as it was not subject to abusive re-creation. IMHO Nikkimaria was right to undo that, and within administrative discretion to undelete it; but what she should have done was to move it to her userspace before editing it, and moved it back only after making the changes. Nonetheless, the changes she made were substantial, and so this is only the most technical of faults. Any admin has the right to share a draft of a deleted article with a user for him to create an enhanced version to return to article space. The deletion under G4 was also out of process. So to be clear, of three admins, all erred, but she erred the least. Wnt (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This User:Wnt opposes and rejects WP:BLP policy and sees the day BLP was created as the day wikipedia died - as such, his rejection of policy rejects consideration of his comments about living people and his policy comments completely - why should we consider his comments about living people and policy when he vocally rejects current policy. Youreallycan 20:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My view is no more extreme than yours; in any case this is mere ad hominem. Wnt (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You vocally reject policy and yet continue to involve yourself in discussions and voting in regards to such policy protected related articles - I simply support and enforce policy, which is far from extreme - Youreallycan 20:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, as you repeatedly say this about my comments on this type of page, I assume I can count on you to use WP:Pending Changes to reject any edits I make to BLP articles on the same basis? Not having to read them should save you some time. Wnt (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As you know and as I have personally requested to you , User:Wnt - as you reject and opposeWP: BLP policy please stop editing and commenting in any way in regards to living subjects on en wikipedia - sadly, you have refused - Youreallycan 20:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well if people who disagree with you would just stop editing it would make it easier to win an argument, I suppose. Wnt (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

" win an argument," is reflective of your WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality - I am looking for the NPOV solution - Youreallycan 20:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I could follow NPOV without reference to BLP, say, by following WP:NPOV? Besides, I didn't actually advocate the complete annihilation of WP:BLP, just a rollback to before the User:Badlydrawnjeff decision, when Wikipedia was having its Golden Age. As a guideline favoring sensitivity to subjects, of lower importance than the verifiability and neutral point of view policies, interpreted by people who admit the existence of WP:WELLKNOWN, it need not be so bad. Wnt (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought you were going to respond again but I see you ducked out to inadvertently violate 3RR in an unrelated "NPOV solution". (sorry, no, he was blocked for something else) I should say that I don't feel like I was following a "battleground mentality" by commenting on the original thread, and the above conversation speaks for itself. To be clear though - I take from your answer above that you do think it's appropriate to reject an edit in Pending Changes because the editor thinks the BLP policy should be rolled back or abolished? Because I don't think people realize that's the kind of thing they've been voting for. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As a WP:Reviewer I would not look at the identity of the user only at the policy compliance of the desired addition. - As for the bigger picture, personally I would support indefing users such as yourself that vocally reject the policy and guidelines of the project for reasons that they are detrimental to the goals and ambitions of the foundation. Youreallycan 16:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Avoid naming specific examples

It is risky for people to name specific examples here, as evidenced by the re-creation of a deleted article which the subject did not want. Now, on the contrary, name a specific article which is actually needed, and most of the time, it will be ignored for months or years. However, mention a specific example which might focus unwanted negative attention, and it is often like "Murphy's Law" ("The bread always lands with the buttered side down"). I cannot count how many times I have refrained from naming specific examples, due to this problem. We have wp:BEANS (to warn against mentioning unwanted actions) and the "Streisand Effect" but more needs to be done to avoid the doom-magnet effect. Naming specific examples can act like opening Pandora's Box around them. -Wikid77 03:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If that is what happens, then it just exposes the present system's shortcomings more. I am okay with that, because carrying on as if everything is just fine is not a solution. For every biography you spot, fix quietly and don't mention anywhere, for fear of having your changes undone, another hundred are being abused without your knowledge. The day you are afraid of being seen to do the right thing, you've basically given up on this place. --JN466 10:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It was neither my intention nor my expectation that Mimi Macpherson's BLP would be recreated as a result of my comparison of her treatment here with that of Jim Hawkins. In retrospect, I should have known that there was a very good chance of that happening. I agree with Jayen466 that avoiding specific examples for fear of what might happen to them only avoids the problem, although I am sure your comments were well-intentioned. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ringelsocken

Ringelsocken, as Google will tell you it is German for striped socks. But put it into any wikipedia multimedia search, or search on Commons and what you get is home made porn from what looks to be a 13-14 yo. Ya need to sort your admins out over there skip. John lilburne (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Dang it, what is it, two years since Larry Sanger started with those allegations? I'm getting sick and tired of implausible claims of child porn on Commons. This allegation will need to be taken seriously, we need to figure out whether it is or isn't, but if someone is crying wolf, they need to stop. Wnt (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Dang it back, two years on and there is still body bits being posted by kids, and Commons admins are still in denial. The hands are either extremely well manicured or they are those of a child, there is no musculature on the legs, which you might expect for an adult to be able to bend his leg back like that, there are few if any hairs on the upper legs, the hairs on the lower legs are downy, there are no pubes. So he might well be a 30yo contortionist, with well manicured hands, with shares in a depilatory company, but on the balance of probability I doubt it. You know you shouldn't be holding material like that, and certainly not undeleting it. Also another image uploaded by the same account titled the image as "Penis 14cm" most adult stop measuring their dick. John lilburne (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, you've got me too nervous to download the thing; besides, I have no special insight into these little details. (For example, I have no idea how ethnicities vary, person-to-person variation etc.) I just want somebody neutral and qualified to figure this out, and then, whoever is right is right. I don't want illegal child porn on Commons - on that much, even we can agree. The 14cm thing? I don't know. Actually I just mentioned without knowing that that I wish for educational purposes people would provide a scale measurement. Wnt (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. But basically if it looks like a kid it probably is a kid, and even if it isn't why run the risk? Now I know that isn't going to please the NOTCENSORED crowd, but really what is the problem? Besides I'm pretty sure that if you have someone that looks underage even if they aren't then the end user is going to have problems explain it. John lilburne (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I do think that there should be some consensus in regards to things like this. Get over there, have a look, if it looks inappropriate by consensus, get rid of it. Mrlittleirish 20:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I've gone ahead and deleted it and closed the DR. There are all sorts of issues with that image least of all COM:SCOPE - Alison ^❤ 20:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not really enough. Someone still needs to take a close look at that image and figure out if the assertion was true. If so, something needs to be done about the uploader; if not, the suggestion should be removed or at least refuted to protect his reputation. Wnt (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You are asking others to do what you are unwilling to do for fear of prosecution? 71.215.74.243 (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Somebody's got to look at it. Despite all sorts of discussions I still have no good idea who, if the likelihood is serious enough. But we can't keep an administrator-only secret stash of kiddie porn on the servers, that's not even on the table; if it's illegal it's got to be scoured off completely. (Without illegally destroying evidence, that is...) And we have to know. Wnt (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Whilst the law sees both as illegal and a sexual offence, and some prosecutors in the US have behaved just as stupidly as the kid that has done it, there is actually a difference between child porn and some kid uploading a photo of his dick onto a website, and fortunately the Judiciary are quite capable of discriminating the two as well. What Commons should do is STOP with the NOTCENSORED as its primary, knee jerk, raison d'etre and first make an assessment of the approximate age of the subject. If there is any reasonable doubt that the subject isn't 18+ then get rid. Now they won't do it, but they should, otherwise next week or month some one else will be complaining about the accumulation of underage stuff on Commons. John lilburne (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm really glad you brought this up here, Wnt, as it definitely needs further discussion. In fact, I'd really like to hear what Jimmy's position is on all this, too, as IMO, dealing with stuff like this is unpleasant in the extreme and possibly beyond the remit of a Commons admin. Nobody likes having to analyze images that may be potentially illegal in their jurisdiction.

To the image in question, the uploader has already been blocked and I have now extended this to indefinite. Almost all the images uploaded by this kid, now deleted BTW, are penis pics. What's even more interesting, however, is the deletion log for the file in question here. It's been repeatedly deleted by Commons admin, User:Denniss and repeatedly restored by User:Saibo, also an admin. I ended up closing off the DR myself and deleting the controversial image - for the third time. Given this conversation on my talk page, it's clear that Saibo considers deletions such as these to be "laughable" and he has been unilaterally restoring them, this image here being one example. Now, given that this image may have legal ramifications at worst, and is out of scope at best, I'd really like to know where this is going to go next - Alison ^❤ 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What commons needs to do is to only allow establish editors to upload porn. I remain baffled that brand new accounts can upload questionable pictures with simple "PD-self" declarations and no source-checking whatsoever. When hosting nude pictures of people, we should be really, really, really sure that there is nothing wrong with these pictures. --Conti|✉ 23:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Saibo's behaviour has been some what questionable, he is a Sysop and isn't acting like one. Bidgee (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, his behaviour is quite typical of Commons admins. Have a look at the discussions listed here, as well as the recent articles by Jack Stuef on Buzzfeed:

• The Epic Battle For Wikipedia's Autofellatio Page
• Wikipedia's Kiddie Porn Problem

An interesting question was raised above: What is done with actual child porn images, like those mentioned by Stuef that showed the erect penises of minors etc.? Are they still accessible to admins, like ordinary deleted files, or are they truly deleted from the servers? JN466 23:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I can answer that. All the images deleted are still available to the admin team, unless they have been explicitly oversighted by one of the four oversighters there - Alison ^❤ 00:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - if there are truly child porn issues, and the Foundation is notified, we actually remove them from the servers and report as required by law. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. What about this file, for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Teenager%27s_butt.jpg Its description read:

English: 15-16 years old teenager's butt

Date 27 August 2011

Source Own work

Author Anonymous User

Has that been removed from the server, or does it not cross the legal threshold to child pornography? What about http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:M_penis.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 described as “A boys penis. erected”. Is that still on the server? --JN466 02:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see my statement above: if they are porn issues and if the Foundation is notified, we remove them as required by law. Which means that in some cases, they are not removed until law enforcement has cleared it. In others they are removed immediately. I can tell you that the second one was oversighted (I know, because I did it). I'm not familiar with the first one, but I'll look into it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That file you removed was on Commons for about half a year. Stuef said it took a while to remove even after he reported it. Is there a way we can make it easier to report images like that directly to the Foundation? You say "that in some cases, they are not removed until law enforcement has cleared it". Does that mean each such file is reported to law enforcement, and they decide whether it is child pornography or not, and you then proceed accordingly? Or have I misunderstood what you meant? --JN466 18:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Are there data available on how often files deleted as child pornography are viewed by admins and bureaucrats? JN466 00:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, no. There's no direct mechanism for knowing who's-looking-at-what, but I guess raw log access would be able to tell you. It's possible that a WMF developer would be able to crunch the server logs and tell you - Alison ^❤ 00:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Another question is subject consent. Many photographs are clearly taken by someone other than the subject. Some seem to be the product of sex tourism. Yet on what basis does Commons believe that the subject has consented to the upload? An anonymous uploader's word? It seems just a perpetuation of their exploitation. --JN466 23:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have pointed out some photos on commons that ere taking of subjects who clearly did not appreciate their photo being taken - the admins answer was that it was not illegal. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There's an ethical difference if those subjects didn't have their bits on display, though. Formerip (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the ethics is the same the stakes are just higher.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, tomato tomato. Higher stakes = difference. Formerip (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My point wasn't to fight about words but to suggest that the underlying ethical problem of subject consent is pervasive - it just comes to the fore especially when dealing with photos that are obviously compromising situations. My point is that there should be a difference between legal requirements and ethical guidelines - legality is a minimum standard - ethically sound policies should be the ideal. We currently only enforce legal matters but have no ethical guidelines for photographic content.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Maunus makes a very good point indeed. There's no place for ethics on Commons - just whatever's (deemed to be possibly) legal. This is a major failing of Commons; sometimes deleting an image is just the right and the kind thing to do. But in practice, this rarely happens - Alison ^❤ 00:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a somewhat parallel conversation going on on Commons-l:

With all the legal talk I think this discussion is moving in the wrong direction. To paraphrase Sarah, is it really worth it to "be unpleasant just because we can"? I realize that we need to draw lines to protect our users and ensure reliably the freedom of the work we host. But can't we move the line on the other side of content that is not particularly valuable for the project and could cause serious personal problems for uploaders and depicted persons. The keep on the Obi DR seems rather spiteful and detrimental to the overall cause. But I have the feeling that the involved people still think they are the "guardians" of free content...

This long thread is mainly about a semi-professional photographer who had three mildly erotic photos scraped from Flickr. They were taken in a private setting, never meant to be public, and when the models discovered they were on Commons, they badly wanted them removed. And they should have been, according to Commons guidelines, which require subject consent for images taken in a private setting (not to mention the Wikimedia Foundation board resolution on images of identifiable people). There were at least six separate deletion requests, and each one was refused by Commons admins. Everyone on the Commons mailing list, incl. Tim Starling, Ryan Kaldari, Cary Bass, Thomas Morton, Sarah, is agreed that these images should have been deleted, and/or that there is a serious problem at Commons. Yet none of the admins on the list wants to be the one deleting the images, fearing they will be reverted. --JN466 01:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone has, finally, done the right thing. --JN466 11:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

And was reverted 6 hours later[38]. --Túrelio (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Saibo is...um, quite a character, to put it conservatively. He has long been in Beta M's corner regarding M's banishment, and apparently does not like dissent. First threatening to block me himself, then angling for the Commons community to do it for him. Apparently being a critic of a Wiki-project without contributing to it makes me guilty of violating the "signal-to-noise ration" rule. It is all quite pathetic, honestly. These people need to be reigned in. Tarc (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no point saying that new users can't upload porn, or that in general Commons shouldn't take porn, in order to avoid illegal child porn, because no matter what it's called that will (or should be) be objected to once it's looked at, and until it's looked at it could be named "ringensocken" and nobody would know. I don't want to see this issue milked for somebody's personal anti-porn agenda - it's too important for that, because we can't have Wikipedia vulnerable to this kind of thing. We should be all together on one page of trying to keep our project safe from serious legal attack and media humiliation, not to mention keeping our contributors safe. When people try to link this into the whole general anti-porn, anti-anything-nasty debate, they're confounding what we have to do to survive with some private agenda, and that's dangerous. This is something both sides should be more careful about. Wnt (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't care how many pricks, twats, or tits are hosted on Commons, nor what is being done with them. Just as I don't care about the same on flickr, or picassa. What I think is offish is when they get delivered up when I put "ringensocken" into a search. This one was of a kid, but the objection would still be there if it was some 30yo dick too. Now there are also times when I might find "ringensocken" throwing up a dick amusing, or I might even be looking for a sock and a cock, so I don't think that they should be banned either. But I should have to do something in order to get sock and cock, same as when I'm searching on flickr and I only want images that are CC-BY. The issue with avoid collecting images of the genitalia of children is different. As said above there needs to be a change of mindset over a Commons regarding this stuff where the default position is not to host it if the person looks young or age is indeterminate. There should be exceptions, some special criteria or process before acceptance, but you can't do it by crowd sourcing whether some thing is underage or not. Particularly when in practice it turns out to be just 3-4 people, with an aggressive attitude favouring acceptance. John lilburne (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This one was not of a kid. There's not the slightest evidence the person in the image is underage. You cannot tell from the image whether the hands are "well manicured" or not; you see exactly one fingernail, and it's out of focus. The leg hair is not consistent with that of most 13-14 year olds. It is of course possible this person is underage - at about age 17 - but it's far more likely he's in his 20s. Any Commons admin can look at the deleted histories of commons:File:Mein Penis von hinten.jpeg, commons:File:Gay boy von hinten.JPG, commons:File:My penis 14 cm 2.JPG, commons:File:Penis von der seite 14cm.JPG, and commons:File:Penis von hinten.JPG, all from the same user and all of the same young man with the colored-socks fetish, and see the quantity of leg hair. This is clearly no child. There are good reasons to delete excessive penis pics at Commons, but squawking "child porn" every time you see a naked pic of someone who appears to be under 60 is not productive. Angr (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does the pornography industry have to go to great lengths to make sure that its subjects are adults, but the Commons gets to wash its hands of any such responsibility? Perhaps every naked upload should be confirmed as belonging to an adult before it is viewable to those browsing the Commons archives. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That images looks young, and excessively so. If there are other images that show otherwise, then I'll defer to that. However, minus the other images that particular photo looks to be of a child, and few here would want to explain it on their hard drive. Commons has no method of determining the age of the subject of a lower body penis shot, yet for several hours it was one of two images for "ringelsocken". John lilburne (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe we could just stop naked photographs being uploaded unless it is for the direct purpose (e.g. a picture of a penis for a penis related article or the likes). At the end of the day, we are getting into an age where children are able to access the internet on a daily basis, and alot of children will be unsupervised. This means they may or may not stumble across a graphic image. If we stop the uploading of such images, then it could make the internet just that little bit more innocent. Mrlittleirish 12:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's remember that the odds of someone knowingly posting child porn to a public server like this remain very remote. It is one step removed from the producer sending the photos directly to the police. This, like all the preceding allegations, is apparently baseless. People should not be rewarded for a constant campaign of slandering Commons as a bastion of illegal child pornography by having their way on the censorship of routine naked photographs of adults. Wnt (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, if we disregard the whole "OMG CHILD PORN" thing, the issue seems to be that you searched for stripy socks and got a penis. Well... what exactly are we meant to do about that? Uploads are watched as best they can, but frankly copyvios still sneak in and they are a bigger problem than you seeing a penis. Sexuality photos are within our project scope, and they forever shall be. That you saw one is regrettable, but it's the uploader's fault, not the admins'. Admins cannot control what people name files when they upload, we can rename them when we notice something bad, but perhaps there is something about your conduct that is also problematic. You found a badly named file, but instead of adding {{rename}} or asking an admin to move it, you come here and complain to Jimbo. That's not solving the problem, it's simply adding drama.

As for the whole "children could see it" argument, I'm afraid that doesn't hold water. The onus is on parents to appropriately monitor their children's internet use, either directly or via filtering software. Commons does not exist just to serve chilren, it is for any educational use, and sometimes that includes people who want to use pictures of penises. You want to limit nudity uploads to ones which are being directly used on wikimedia projects - again, no. Commons is not just a repository for Wikipedia, it's a repository for the whole world, and just because something isn't used on wikipedia (let's face it, they can't use all our 10 million pictures) does not mean it is not useful generally.

So, please, if you have a problem on Commons, come talk about it on Commons, don't just stand on a soapbox on Jimbo's talk page on a different project and complain. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is little point in discussing it "in Commons", as people like you are the ones nominally in charge over there, i.e. a part of the systemic problem. The refusal to delete an images as requested by the uploader and subject, the refusal to delete random breast image #50 when #1-49 are more than enough, the refusal to rid the project of an unsavoury character like Beta M, the refusal to reign in Saibo who is incessantly hounding WMF staff, filing bogus user complaints against myself, and reverting other admins' attempts to clean up some of the above. No, mattbuck, you have proven that you are utterly incapable of rectifying a single problem at Commons, which makes you the problem. If change comes to the Commons, it will have to come externally. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons is a largely insane place when it comes to adult media, not least thanks to you and your colleagues. You have turned it into a free host for exhibitionists, with decisions like this and this and this that saddle Commons with stuff like this and this and this. Note all the categories you added to the latter file: [39][40] They ensure that this streaker streaks through pages like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:December_2007_in_England – what on earth do you think you are doing over there in Commons? --JN466 16:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What needs fixing is the search system so that the returning cocks in the result isn't totally dependent on the filename, the words in the description, or the categories. Then when some one search for "ringelsocken" they get stripped socks without the cocks. Meanwhile if the cock returned looks like that of child then one can hardly complain if the project gets labelled for being soft on distributing kiddy porn 'K. And the last person with some sense (Fæ) who attempted to get a dumb name, that an administrator gave to a file (mattbuck), so that porn wasn't returned got reverted by our friend (Saibo) here. The atmosphere on Commons is so toxic such that hardly anyone is willing to confront the handful of regulars that seem hell bent on getting porn into the results of every search. John lilburne (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That was a well-meaning attempt by Fæ, but in fact, file renames don't work. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=tolling+bells&fulltext=Search

Wikipedia and Commons need an image filter like every other reputable website. This sort of response is not going to work in the long run. --JN466 16:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That is because tolling bells is in the description too. There are a multitude of ways to get porn in every search and it appears that regulars on Commons know it. You can use the description, the filename, and the categories, and once done it is almost impossible to remove any of it. John lilburne (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

We went through discussions on this before. I still maintain the best way to improve search results is by allowing positive tagging of articles so that the most relevant results can be promoted to the top. This can sort of be done by repeating the terms under a "style:display=none" attribute, but there's a significant problem, namely, it still comes up bolded in the search result itself, which makes the output look really amateurish. A wiggling wingwang might offend someone's sensibilities, but at least it doesn't look amateurish. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Who are we to judge? At least, I don't think I'd be able to sort the amateurs from the professionals in a wingwang lineup. Formerip (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

m:Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons, aka Template:Bugzilla. If the search engine clustered image results properly, it would be a lot more useful, and avoid surprising results, and not need specific maintenance on millions of files and potential searches. It would just work. Rd232 ^talk 18:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I missed that! Looks like a good idea, worth pursuing at least to test its feasibility. Wnt (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to respond in full to your rant, but I would like to address two specific issues:

1. The train image - the categories added are a standard categorisation of all UK trains which I implemented.
2. The toothbrush - what is wrong with "File:Masturbating with toothbrush.jpg"? It is someone masturbating using a toothbrush, it's in fact a very sensible name. I'm sorry that naming an image for its content offends you in some manner, but you'll find it's really quite a common way for images to be named.

-mattbuck (Talk) 22:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh? Collect (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Matt, I'm on your side in a lot of this, but that's ridiculous. Obviously, it's stupid from an information management point-of-view and it just plain looks bad if you enter the search term "toothbrush" and one of your top results is a woman masturbating. I have no idea whose fault it is, but how on earth can you defend something so moronic? Maybe its just an unfortunate quirk and drawing attention to it is a distortion of what commons actually does. Quite probably. But I've known about it for ages. Why in the name of Jesus' two sweet balls is it still like that? Formerip (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why it's #3, I don't defend that, but I do defend its being named and categorised correctly. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You know better than most that adding all those cats to the streaker image puts the image into places where it does not belong. That image had been deleted in May 2009, you restored it on the 30th of November, and immediately added all those train categories. Did you really think that what "9th December", and "South West Trains" is lacking is a guys dick? 23:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs)

We already have some kind of policy at Commons to keep only quality images with educational value, those low quality self-made penis/tit/pussy pics are most often speedy deleted, other via regular DR. The Ringelsocken image was only temporary restored/kept because a rebel/trolling admin reverted my deletion (was a re-upload of a formerly deleted image BTW). The Commons community won't accept restrictions regarding sexuality images imposed by other wikis although we're always open for comments/improvements. --Denniss (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A "rebel/trolling admin" - why is he still an admin? - sorry Denniss the problem is clearly bigger than you either willing to accept or allude to. - Youreallycan 19:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

those low quality self-made penis/tit/pussy pics are most often speedy deleted. I beg to differ. Look at what has recently been proposed for deletion and kept: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nudity_and_sexuality-related_deletion_requests/kept --JN466 02:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a need for a community-run Commons? It is obvious that if you set up a megaproject where anyone can upload anything, you will end up with the place being run by free-speech advocates because moderates have no interest debating whether a search for "toothbrush" should lead to masturbation pics. My modest proposal is that Commons be shut down and replaced with a system run by two WMF staffers who appoint volunteers to assist—the only hurdle is the question of whether such a move would expose the WMF to undue legal liability. I'm sure the people currently running Commons could find another website to express their views, while the new Commons could get back to its role of supporting encyclopedic content. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Gee, why don't you shut down Wikipedia and restart it as a system run by two staffers who appoint volunteers we assist? They can have some catchy new slogan, like "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia Anyone We Like Can Edit". The nameless, unspeakable horror that a site started with NOTCENSORED as a policy did, indeed, come to be run by people who believe in freedom of speech some of the time. Who could ever have guessed? I got a better idea: why don't you go find another website to express your views? If that's what you think is the solution. Wnt (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't with free speech as such. The problem is that someone is stencilling dicks on the side of the trains. If dicks were kept in the appropriate box marked dicks, most of the issues would go away. I would be the first to say "Well don't look in that box". The division is entirely false and most of the people that you have labelled as anti-porn or whatever are no such thing. I for example helped the adult ero posters on flickr to upload as much porn as they want without getting their account shit canned or otherwise restricted by Yahoo. I don't expect that you'd be able to imagine the 'filth' that some of my flickr contacts post. The primary concern for many here is that searching for "Human male" shouldn't do this. The major concern is that the free-speechers on Commons are flashing dicks wherever you look. Or to put it another way, given the state of the search engine, they are no longer serving their primary purpose. John lilburne (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the one thing you can say about those results, there's no denying they're human males! As described above, there are ideas for improving the search interface. Wnt (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would second what John says here. I have zero problem with Flickr having whatever amateur porn they are having. If I go onto Flickr, I don't have to see it. And if I want to see it, I can. That's perfect. To me it is completely bizarre that this is even a matter for argument here. I would still maintain that media like this (NSFW) and this (NSFW) are out of scope, because to me they are pure exibitionism bereft of educational purpose, but you know what? If they were in their box, as they are in Flickr, for those to find who want to find them, I wouldn't mind half as much as I do now that a corner of Commons has become a playground for exhibitionists. --JN466 18:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Like every Wikimedia project, Commons is run by its contributors. Why should Commons be any different? If you don't like how it's run, join in. It's a community project. Powers ^T 00:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Or more realistically, WMF could find some money to improve search (eg get a paid developer working on search full time). m:Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons, aka Template:Bugzilla seems a good approach (if the search engine clustered image results properly, a lot of the NSFW search problems would go away - and the search would be more useful besides). But also if resources were put into fixing issues with file redirects (commons:Help:File redirects), we could rename files more freely, which would help since the search engine foolishly puts so much weight on terms appearing in the filename. Rd232 ^talk 00:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Meta is apparently going to be refocused in the future - why not place all the "Wiki interaction projects" under Meta, and merge Commons into Meta? Then WMF could establish stronger precepts for the images shared on multiple Wikis. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggested merging Meta into an "InstantMeta" namespace based at Commons (m:Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2012-02#What_is_Meta_For.3F); this became m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of meta-wiki, which went down really well. Merging the other way will be just as popular with the Commons community, with the additional drawback that Commons has much more template etc infrastructure to merge, so the merge would be harder if Commons went into Meta rather than Meta into Commons. Rd232 ^talk 12:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Merging Meta and Commons together would give the Commons community, which is mostly made up of ideologues, far too much power and influence over Steward elections, Wikimedia polls, and such. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No please , commons at this time should not be merged anywhere - WP:Office actions should be taken to remove the violators and rogue administrators. - as someone asserted, "every Wikimedia project is run by its contributors" , but there is foundation oversight, isn't there? Youreallycan 16:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the same oversight the Foundation already exerts over Commons. Powers ^T 17:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Then I urge the WP:Office asap, to more liberally use their oversight to remove the advanced privileges and indefinitely block the handful of users that are editing against the foundations stated goals and ambitions. - Youreallycan 17:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me the basic problem here is a dichotomy between those who say "Commons is going to have some graphic material, and there's currently no way to hide it from people who don't want to see it without hiding it from everyone" and those who say "Until there's a way to hide it from people who don't want to see it, we should hide it from everyone." Powers ^T 17:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The solution, then, is to implement a straightforward image filter as used by all major websites, managed by staff if necessary, which allows one-click turning on/off hiding of a swath of categories of images according to the needs and desires of the end user. I have seen no plausible objection to such a system.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering the backlash to the image filter proposal, your comment isn't only bold; it's audacious. Don't you realize that the dewiki community is only inches away from seceding from Wikimedia and starting a fork? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Let them do that if they choose. - sooner the better imo, cut the strings. - The foundation should have done the right thing and implemented the WP:Image filter as an office action and those that didn't accept it should have forked themselves off.Youreallycan 18:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Actually, the one thing Wikipedia needs is a good competitor. Monopolies like those of Microsoft, Google etc. are not healthy, and it's no less true when it's us who are holding the monopoly. If the Germans malcontents can get an alternative project together, good luck to them. --JN466 19:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Good ridance ... let the troublemakers try their own project. Agathoclea (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Licensing for speeches and lectures

Hi!

A lecture of yours given at Stanford on 2nd September 2005 has been recently listed at Potential copyright violations at English Wikisource, as it does not appear to have a license. I think probably the easiest and least ambiguous way for us to find out the exact licensing of this material is to ask you directly, so here I am! Could you please clarify, here, at the discussion at Wikisource, via OTRS or otherwise, if this work is freely licensed, and if so under what terms? Alternatively, if you do not wish to freely license the material, we can speedy it as soon as we know this is the case. Additionally, if there are any blanket licensing terms for any of your speeches and lectures that Wikisource ought to be aware of, we'd be grateful to know. Thank you very much, Inductiveload (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no source for it. How do you even know the transcript is accurate? (I haven't read it in detail, so I have no idea.) There is no suggestion anywhere I can see that I ever gave permission for it. (I might have, because I often do, but I see no indication of it.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's why it's up for deletion. Would you like to license it? If no license is given or you would not like to release under a compatible license, we will remove it as a matter of course. However, you are the only person able to release if it is not already released, or you might be able to say if it already is. The video itself is CC-NC, so not compatible with Wikisource. There was a link to the original video at Wikisource, but it was broken. The video is now at the Internet Archive if you want to check for transcription fidelity. Inductiveload (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Brian Mingus transcribed your talk from Stanford's video which Howard published, and uploaded the transcript to Commons. ("Please note that this video, transcript, and blog entry are licensed under the Creative Commons license with the stipends: [sic] Require Attribution = Yes, Allow Commercial Use = Yes, Allow Modifications = Yes.") Since the transcript is a derivative work of your talk, your permission is necessary to keep the text. 70.59.20.190 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC - Wikipedia_talk:Special:UnwatchedPages

Hi, I don't know if this is something you may be interested, but there are some views about unwatched pages that I don't think should go unattended to. Would you be able to pop by and voice your opinion on the matter? Mrlittleirish 10:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)