Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies across all article topics, articles, and project namespaces. Administrators are encouraged to refactor any talk page discussions that constitute a clear violation of the biographies of living persons policies. Repeated BLP violations in any namespace should be treated as serious disruption.
BLP certainly should (and does) apply to all articles. It also apply to talk pages, but not in exactly the same way. A signed opinion of an individual is not the same as claimed neutral content. We do not want a situation where the reliability of various sources cannot be discussed openly on a talk page, because it could be seen as negative comments about a living author. I can imagine some POV pushers would be happy to use BLP as a weapon to stop any talk page discussion about their favorite non-reliable source. We cannot reasonably demand sources for talk page comments either. That does not mean talk pages are fair game of course. Attempts to discredit a person my posting rumors or attacks on the talk page should be removed.--Apoc2400 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles with a topic that is a living person or a collection of living persons are clearly under the focused scope of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for the purposes of all policies and processes on the English Wikipedia.
One idea that has just occurred to me at Wikipedia_talk:Volunteer_response_team#info-en_.28Quality.29_.E2.80.93_how_many_a_day.3F is that we could place a logo or symbol at the top of each article that is substantially about living persons, just to increase editor awareness. We could also alter the editnote for all of these articles, and indeed make editors aware that they can be individually traced and sued (there have been precedents where ISPs were forced by a court to reveal editors' identity) if they add libellous content. The more accountable editors feel, the better our BLPs will become. --JN466 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I feel about a logo or the edit notice as exactly proposed, but awareness and accountability are both important issues. I will put some thought into this (and encourage others to do so as well). Vassyana (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Any addition to the editnotice would have to be worded in a more restrained manner than I employed above. Something like "Please remember that you are legally and personally accountable for any edits you make to Wikipedia", with a Wikilink to a page where further information is available (including the information that individual editors have been traced via their ISPs, and sued in a number of cases). If editors leave behind the mindset that "I am anonymous and can do what I like without having to fear real-world consequences", this will solve a significant part of the problem. People will think twice, which is what they should do in a BLP. --JN466 15:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Any article that devotes substantial coverage to living persons is clearly under the focused scope of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for the purposes of all policies and processes on the English Wikipedia.
Articles devoted to the actions of living persons are clearly under the focused scope of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for the purposes of all policies and processes on the English Wikipedia.
Articles for deletion discussions about biographies of living persons and other articles where substantial portions are dedicated to the coverage of living persons default to delete when there is no consensus to keep.
Articles for deletion discussions about biographies of living persons, articles about collections of living persons, and articles about the actions of living persons default to delete when there is no consensus to keep.
If the subject of an article considered a "biography of a living person" makes or endorses a deletion request, the article defaults to delete unless there is a clear and overwhelming consensus to keep.
Articles about living persons must meet one or more of the following requirements for inclusion in on the English Wikipedia:
One or more entries in reliably published encyclopedias, general or specialized.
Substantial coverage in one or more books or chapters of books published by an academic press or other high reliability publisher.
Subject of one or more articles in a reputable periodical including reliable magazines, journals, and trade publications, but excluding dailies, broadsheets, tabloids, alternative newsweeklies, and related publications.
Subject of repeated, extensive nationwide and/or international news coverage by uncontroversially reliable news media and publishers.
For inclusion on the English Wikipedia, topics about living persons must have reliable sources available that feature substantial coverage sufficient to support article development to A-Class, Good Article, and/or Featured Article standards. If there is consensus in a merge, deletion, content noticeboard, or similar community discussion that an article about a living person lacks sufficient sources in this context, it should be merged, redirected, or deleted, as appropriate to the discussion.
For inclusion on the English Wikipedia, topics about living persons must have reliable sources available that feature substantial coverage sufficient to support article development to A-Class, Good Article, and/or Featured Article standards. Articles about a living person lacking sufficient sources in this context should be merged or redirected where possible. If a community discussion results in a consensus that sufficient sources are lacking, the article must be merged or redirected where possible and otherwise deleted, not superseding a "delete" result in a community discussion.
For the purposes of inclusion and establishing notability, sources of ephemeral coverage (such as dailies, newsweeklies, tabloids, and blogs) are not sufficient to establish notability or justify inclusion.
If there is a lack of consensus regarding the reliability of a source for coverage about a living person, it should not be used. If a community discussion regarding the reliability of a source comes to no consensus, the source may not be used for the coverage of living persons.
Primary sources may not be used for information about living persons where it is controversial or contentious. If there is a lack of consensus regarding the use of a primary source in the coverage of living persons, it should not be used. If a community discussion regarding the use of a primary source comes to no consensus, the source may not be used for the coverage of living persons. If there is an accompanying dispute over the primary/secondary classification of a source, it is considered primary for the coverage of living persons.
Self-published sources, including blogs, are not appropriate sources for the coverage of living persons, unless authored by the subject(s). If there is a dispute over the publishing classification of a source, it is considered self-published for the coverage of living persons unless a community discussion reaches a clear consensus that it is independently published.
If there is a dispute over due weight or similar considerations of appropriateness, dispute resolution and community input should be pursued. If a community discussion reaches no consensus about whether a portion of coverage regarding a living person is inappropriately weighted or otherwise inappropriate, the coverage should be treated as inappropriate.
If there is a dispute over verifiability, original research, or similar considerations of accurate reporting, dispute resolution and community input should be pursued. If a community discussion reaches no consensus about whether a portion of coverage regarding a living person is original research, fails verification, or otherwise constitutes inaccurate reporting of reference content, the coverage should be treated as original research and failing verification.
Combining separate issues and separating connected ones
There seems to some artificial separation of issues. For example, the dead tree standard when it has been generally proposed wasn't for all BLPs but rather a standard for when opting out should be allowed. (It was I believe originally proposed by User:Durova). I'm not aware of any editors who think that a dead tree standard should be the absolute standard for notability of living people. There are similar other proposals about opting out that should be included that are not. For example, there is the proposal that opting out should be allowed when there is no pre-existing biographic article. Others have proposed that the key should be opting out should be allowed unless an individual is a willing, public figure. There are other problems with how things have been proposed here. Unfortunately, they seem to have serious potential of further movement of an already very skewed Overton window. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The rationale for the dead trees standard makes it very clear that it's different usage from the usual. It also has many more options than the usual limited variety. I've hear some people suggest it as a good measure for BLPs. If you are opposed to it, please feel free to note so under the proposal. They are there for discussion and feeling out opinions, not for a rubber stamp.
Regarding the opt-out, I specifically oppose "no extant" article and "all except willing public figure" opt out schemes. The absence or presence of article can bear little relation to notability, whether as a Wikipedia construct or as a matter of general academic or public noteworthiness. There are many people who are public figures (in the ethical, journalistic, and legal senses of the term) unwillingly. That noted, I am actually keen on private figures having an opt-out. I have no particular opinion on limited public figures, except that I'm in favor of unwilling limited public figures to opt out. I'm willing to add proposals for both categories of people. Any suggestions on framing and wording? Vassyana (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
No specific wording although some of the wording at User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP might be helpful. I'm incidentally curious as to the logic behind your opposition to a willing public figure test. I'm not sure I follow your logic above. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. Regarding public figures: Wholly public figures are wholly public figures. Willingness does not and cannot impact this. To me, distinguishing between willing and unwilling public figures crosses the line from the spirit of BLP over to SPOV and censorship. In the case of limited public figures (in the broad sense of the term), willingness seems a valid consideration as the coverage is a lot less clear, in the ethical and journalistic senses. In the case of private figures, the pendulum swings all the way to the other side and it seems clear to me that requests for exclusion from such persons should be liberally granted. Does that help clarify my perspective? Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes. That's a very interesting argument. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Writing about living people must be neutral. It is not acceptable to overly focus on negative aspects, even if sourced. Any editor may remove negative parts of an article to make it more balanced. The negative, sourced content may be included only when the article as a whole is balanced.
This should help deal with those articles that are 80% "Controversy". --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Playing devil's advocate, what about the subjects where the coverage in reliable sources is "80% controversy"? That said, I note the clause "only when the article as a whole is balanced". Do you mean that negative material should be removed, even when sourced, when the negative coverage is undue weight in related to the current article? Or are you getting at something else? Vassyana (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)