Knowledge talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 10

2381:

months and I'm certainly not an expert. There is another editor who has been contributing for a year and a half who is likely more expert. He and I both think that the new editor is violating BLP. What I wonder is whether to grant him more leeway because the subject is a political candidate. There are many edits involved but here is one of the simpler. Many reliable sources have repeated an allegation published in a single news article. So while there is the appearance of multiple sources, they are all based on a single source. That news article contains a fact that is not disputed. Nobody objects to including that fact in the Knowledge article. The news article went beyond that undisputed fact to include an allegation from a single unreliable source. (The source was a political opponent of the subject and had a history of disagreeing with the subject.) The news article concluded with commentary to the effect that the allegation was not consistent with the subject's image. The senior editor and I do not object to the inclusion of the undisputed fact. We do object to inclusion of the badly sourced allegation and the closing commentary on the grounds of NPOV, particularly in the context of a BLP. This talk page may not be the best place to resolve this dispute. (What would be the best way to get guidance from experts on NPOV and BLP?) My question for this BLP talk page is whether we should allow more leeway in the case of a political candidate? If an allegation even badly sourced is good enough for the major media is it good enough for Knowledge? Should we relax our standards in the case of a political candidate or should we hold to the usual standards? I'm not asking you to judge this specific case but rather to help provide the criteria for evaluating the case and similar cases.

4175:

baskets. How do the sources treat the phrasing? We should keep the context of the Secondary sources in mind. Sounes argues for Dylan's continued Christianity even during the periods when rumors had arisen of a return to Judaism, so I wouldn't say that Sounes denies that Dylan was a Christian at one point. Considering that he, and the biographers which agree on this point, are much more well-versed in the subject than any of us are, and have done far more research and have actually spoken extensively on this subject with individuals who are familiar with Dylan, it would be reasonable to trust their presentation over any editor's. Again, we should also keep in mind when scrutinizing the text that it is but one presentation, and certain information which would be very useful for us was not included because of seeming superfluousness, lack of space or editorial issues, and the lack of necessity for certain concepts which are basic assumptions (i.e., Sounes may assume that we don't need a lot of convincing, so he presents a milder case than possible, and ignores the presentation of facts which would be vital to us discussioneers and nitpickers). As it is, however, the sources argue towards one point: Dylan was a Christian, but it's not sure where he stands nowadays.--

4075:

politically-loaded word. Also, the word "self-identification" is unfortunately never clearly defined to date, and we can only be certain that he has never used the word in public statements to describe himself, not that he has never used the word at all. I think our disagreement to date is that you, based on my own opinion, seem to be using a more restrictive definition of "self-identification" than I do. I haven't ever actually seen a clear definition of the term, and thus can't be sure if it explicitly refers only to "public statements" or whether private statements are acceptable as well. And, again, this situation seems to have parallels with other potential situations where an individual might hesitate to use the "g-word" (for gay), or similar qualms which may be based more on possible objections to using specific words rather than to the substance of the statements. I think that situations like this kind are probably the most contentious, both in terms of sexuality and religion, and am not sure exactly how the policy should be written to deal with these cases where people refuse to use specific, clear phrasing.

7966:

our job to facilitate or aide people who wish to potentially defame living people by posting unsourced claims whether via talk pages or articles. Clear opinions aren't quite as bad but they are OT as on all talk pages and there is never anything wrong with deleting them in general IMHO and especially not on BLPs. Note that despite your earlier claims, the fact that someone signed something doesn't make it their opinion. If for example I say "84.46.10.148 is a child-molestor" this is clearly not an opinion but a statement of fact. Since I've attributed it to myself, this makes it clear that I'm at fault; but this doesn't change the fact that it is potentially defamatory and in any case if completely unsourced it should not be anywhere on wikipedia. An opinion would be something like "I think 84.46.10.148 is an idiot". P.S. Please don't take anything I said the wrong way. I'm not attacking your or being uncivil. I originally used John Doe as my example but changed to you since I felt it might help you realise why it's exceptionally bad. I do not think you're an idiot nor a child-molestor.

3947:

attested to by the subject in private, such that it appears in numerous contemporary sources, and even publicly demonstrated, if not directly commented upon, by the subject himself at the time, only to change later, with the subject refusing to comment on the accuracy of prior statements. So, for instance, X is widely reported as having a sexual relationship with Y, and is even seen in public in "romantic" behavior with Y, but makes no clear, definitive, unambiguous statements at the time to the press, although the statements he does make are fairly obviously substantiating the claim. Then, later, for whatever reason, that contact of whatever kind it was ends, and the subject continues to refuse to address the matter in any clear and definitive way. A similar situation, but on a religious rather than sexual level, is the cause of the Dylan controversy. If this change is to be made, then I think that addressing directly these sorts of situations, which are the problematic ones, might be useful, as it is these kinds of situations where the controversy arises.

3629:

category, we are using Knowledge's unattributed editorial voice to say something about a subject. So it stands to reason that a special rule about the application of a category would logically extend to any content that uses Knowledge's unattributed editorial voice. So to apply a "Gay" category to an article is the equivalent of putting "So and so is gay" into the article, without sourcing it. It would make sense that the same criteria which applies to sexual pref. and religious cats would also apply to making unattributed statements to the same effect in the article. But since the rules don't actually state that, you would not believe how many editors would (and do) argue that inserting the same statement is fine, because BLP only treats categories as requiring the two criteria. What I want is an additional statement, similar to the thing about lists, that says you have to use the same criteria if Knowledge's unattributed voice is going to be used to make a similar statement as a category would imply. Are you following, or did I totally confuse everyone? -

7813:

clearly not the encyclopedic body, and the statements therein not in any way "official Knowledge statements". As it stands, it was as if an expert group at the Britannica had clear guidelines not to ever consider talk about anything detrimental to the reputation of the object of the article unless it already is not just expert knowledge but public knowledge gone through the press a dozen times. In this way, what we're doing is giving articles on contemporaries a POV, because fanboys will brush off any hint of the inappropriate and, their defense not being detrimental, can abuse articles suggest there is no substance to criticism that is very much substantiated. @Roger Davies: This would be a case that is simply factually wrong. But what if it's factually right? What if the guy has been convicted, the user knows he has been convicted, but can't find the precise court decision reference anywhere? The statement "I know this guy's a convict" would already be grounds for deletion of the statement as it stands. --

4105:(unindent) Each case has to be weighed on its merits. As Dylan publicly espoused Christ, reports in reliable sources of private conversations where he described himself as Christian, would not seem to be problematic. There are reports of private conversations with his Christian companions/mentors, but even they do not state that he described himself thus. The only evidence as regards to any formal affiliation with Christianity as a religion is his rejection of it. The activities that he undertook are ones that would normally be done by someone who would indeed think of themselves as a Christian, and in the enthusiasm of revelation would proclaim that. The fact that Dylan didn't is telling. A possible solution is that the list has a separate section "Acceptance of Christ" or some such, which would include those people who had accepted Christ but did not necessarily accept Christianity as a religion. 7380:- or information that people have called press conferences to announced or included in their autobiographies - is generally false. Absolutely, positively, we must insist on the highest quality sources, and we must act strongly to avoid any undue weight. In cases where information is already widely known and reported, we aren't doing anyone any favour by excluding it - and in cases where it isn't, we shouldn't be including it. If someone's name is private, or just reported in Johnny Nobody's blog - leave it out. It it's in the lead story three straight nights on the CBC - including it won't make much difference in how widely it's deseminated (basically, to anyone who cares). Be upright, and be moral - but don't figure yourself the great righter of wrongs the world over - it isn't the point of Knowledge, and you may have trouble getting through doors if your head gets that large. 5959:(where only a few shreds of information are available), the attitude seems to be to keep the article and try and find the missing information to make it balanced. To me, that is invading his privacy, and can also end up being original research. Far better to condense the available material into his father's article. On a more general point, writing a balanced, comprehensive biography is a difficult thing to do. I don't think Knowledge does it well unless it has a model to follow (eg. a published biography). At the moment, some Knowledge editors seem to think that writing a biography involves finding everything that has been published about someone (no matter what the source), and throwing it all together to form a "biography". A proper biography takes much more effort than this, and does not involve using tabloid news stories as sources. Can you at least agree with that? 1752:. This article is especially problematic since Al Gore III is not a public figure (he has no involvement in politics himself) and he seems to enjoy speeding and smoking weed (at least according to most news sources). The point I especially have a problem with is that editors keep reinserting information about Gore III being suspended from school for smoking weed at a school dance when he was 13. To me, this is a very obvious violation of Gore III's privacy, and has no place in an encyclopedia article. Every time I explain this, however, I am shouted down by accusations of "whitewashing" and "political censorship" and the editors insist that it should be included in the article (along with ever other arrest or infraction ever committed by Gore III) because it is well-sourced (having been mentioned in a book about 5306:, but they should not be the end product. Wikipedians cannot carry out original research, but in the cases of living people, often the only available sources to expand on the bare essentials are news reports. Judging how to present all the material is a form of original research, in my view - it is extremely difficult to give things their due weight, and getting that right often needs further research, something Wikipedians often cannot do. The more considered analysis often has not been published yet, and in some cases only appears after the subject has died, or even years after the subject has died. Until that point, Knowledge articles can only be collections of reported facts and news. When there is widespread coverage and lots of available information, the result can be OK, though even there, as in 1268:, but there's no particular reason other than that", then I would very likely bring it up for discussion, unless they could provide some reasoning that convinces me that well, yeah, it is irredeemable. As to your doomsday scenarios, WAS, there's always a doomsday scenario. And actually, yes, I understand the things you mentioned pretty well. I'm not in any way for original reporting of true but embarrassing "trivia" here, if it's titillating but not widely known and of significant importance. That's exactly why we should stick to widely available information. We should avoid pseudo-biographies, and mention people notable only in connection with an event in the article about the event, not in a pseudo-"biography" under their own name. I'm all for all of these things. What I'm 5649:– I'm not knowledgeable in US and Florida privacy law but think that there's little chance of going wrong if one uses common sense and follows current guidelines. As for your second point, I prefer to avoid mixing policy and personal ethics and think that the provisions of "relevance" and "undue weight" establish an appropriate standard. The mindset you refer to is inappropriate not only from a privacy perspective,but also from an encyclopedic/editorial perspective. Encyclopedia articles provide an overview of their subjects; they do not list every single known detail about them. I think the best counter to the "include all information" mindset is more and more consistent application of the "relevance" and "undue weight" provisions of BLP and NPOV, respectively. 1664:). Pointing editors to the BLP and NPOV policies seems to be equally ineffective. The editors always respond by saying "we're not being biased, we're just listing the facts". I can (and have) argued about how this violates the spirit of both NPOV and BLP until I'm blue in the face, but it is completely futile. The articles always revert back to the state of being coatracks. This problem can and does have significant effects on real people's lives (often people who are not notable enough to have a public forum to counter whatever bias we present here). Can we please add something concrete to this policy that will prevent the proliferation of this type of editing, i.e. articles becoming lists of well-sourced negative facts about people of borderline notability? 7976:

that statement of fact, your IP is available, your ISP can be contacted, and the person can take legal action against YOU. The talk page is clearly marked as "talk", not as encyclopedic content. I am reviewing and editing scientific publications as part of my work, and you can hear me quite often stating that the author is a complete and utter moron who has no idea what they're doing because of A,B,C. In the written review, I will put that a bit more politely, but if you're around while I discuss the paper with fellow editors, I have no reason not to call a spade a spade. "Being fair to living people" is an issue for the contents, not the editorial work. No, it is not our job to facilitate or aide people who wish to defame living people. But it

7775:", I'm not so sure anyone would have a solid BLP reasoning to remove that from the talkpage if it was actually printed in the Sun. My point was in regards to your statement of voicing personal opinions. If I were to go to the article on Celebrity X and say on the talkpage "I heard Celebrity X is a monstrous bitch who bathes in the blood of virgins and tips poorly in restaurants", undoubtedly that should be removed from the talkpage as a BLP violation (and probably trolling as well). BLP requires a bit of common sense in the application, but I don't think excluding talkpages is a good way to go... in fact there was just a situation yesterday where something had to be blanked from a user talkpage because it was a clear BLP.-- 2529:. The article contains a series of serious allegations - either direct ("disgraced town supervisor", "rife with allegations of corruption") or by association ("his office was accused of covering up the disappearence of over one million dollars", he "refused to although the School Superintendent eventually fled to Arizona") - without any balancing material whatsoever. I was unable to access the sources for verification: the first, in a 1995 edition of New York Times, is now available by subscription only; the second points only to a general archive of the Buffalo News, which does not appear to contain the cited article. I have therefore no idea how closely the article reflects editorial coverage or if it reflects it at all. 3661:

phrases or concepts that can affect thousands of articles drastically. Still, I'm not entirely opposed to this change, but I think it is inherently problematic- lists and categories are different, and they have different sets of limitations. Applying similar standards between both of them ignores these differences and, essentially, neuters the usefulness of many lists, which have much, much greater flexibility in transmitting information, and can offer detailed descriptions and second opinions. Categories, which live at the bottom of pages and define concepts in a mere word or few, are extremely limited, and cannot be explained in detail. Therefore, I don't believe that this change is very well thought-out.--

6059:

can also end up being original research." I am saying that trying to find out and add more information would invade his privacy, not that the current article is doing that. The crucial question is: would you agree that if there is only a small amount of information about someone because they are (apart from several episodes of media coverage) essentially a non-notable, private individual, that it is not possible to write a NPOV article about such a person? And further, that, if there is only a small amount of information, trying to find more information about a private individual to satisfy NPOV is not acceptable?

8416:. It is just a plain bland fact. For example, "person X is not listed as an heir to the French Crown on a list published by Y. Person Z does not appear on the list of Nobel Laureates on the official list published at W, although person Z claims to have a Nobel Prize." These statements do not make the leap of inference to say that person Z or person X lied or their information was misrepresented intentionally by someone. That is left to the reader. The inconsistency is noted, and that is all. No speculation as to the reason for this are presented, since that might be OR. For example, stating in an article that the 1322:, to get a good gauge for what people believe would be a good reason to perform such a deletion in the first place. If we take steps to ensure that we have clear guidelines that really do enjoy support of the wider community, we can avoid a whole lot of trouble later—someone acting according to such guidelines isn't likely even to be questioned, someone acting outside of them knows they are likely to be and better have a very good reason, and can think about how to explain such actions before the question is ever even asked. Let's resolve as many problems as we can before they ever even become a problem. 6201:

made public and is trying to maintain a normal life without all kinds of embarassing personal information about their medical condition being posted on Knowledge against their will or their privacy. If there is not already a policy about this, there definitely needs to be one. It's a serious matter of privacy. For example, recently the government of Ontario stopped publishing official records of old/new names of legal name changes in a public book for trans people, because of the risk to these people's security that it poses if they are "outted". Knowledge needs to adopt a good rule on this too.--

6578:

going on here. No need to say "off-wiki" and "real-life" in a general policy like this - it comes across as very insular. Also, too many abbreviations - the acronym BLP is used excessively and comes across as jargon. If this was all re-worded to sound less like "some people are fighting on-wiki, let's put something in this policy so we can shout at them to stop", then it might be better. And anyway, don't existing policies and guidelines already have clauses against this sort of behaviour? This proposal also comes across as proscriptive ("do this") rather than descriptive ("this is what we do").

5632:– I do not object to providing editors with additional guidance on the matter, but only wanted to emphasise that the use of reliable news sources itself should not be discouraged. Rather, the limitations and potential pitfalls of using news sources to write BLPs should be highlighted. I agree that there is a problem when someone wants to include everything ever reported about a living person, but believe that the problem is not rooted in the nature of the source itself (news versus non-news) but rather in the manner in which the source is used (i.e., in the lack of BLP-sensitivity of the editor). 4713:

mention of the item belongs in the Knowledge article, I ended up coming to the conclusion that it probably does. Another editor has recently been asserting that it doesn't, and has removed it, citing WP:BLP. I think this might constitute an interesting edge case, in the sense that if we're going to have an article on this topic at all, a neutrally-presented mention of the Enquirer article might qualify for inclusion, despite the dictates of WP:BLP. The other editor has characterized it as much more cut-and-dried, asserting that WP:BLP clearly doesn't allow for mentioning the Enquirer article.

7266:. I guess you two would have voted in the keep part. This case violated BLP in many ways and was rightfully deleted. But even if this event was noteable enough to merit a mention in wikipedia (which it wasn't), it doesn't mean that the name of the people involved in these events are. Your idea that it doesn't make a significant difference is IMHO a little silly. There is a big difference between someone's name appearing in the newspapers briefly and someone's name being in wikipedia for pertuity. 20 years from now when now that name is still going to be in wikipedia, very easily found. 5626:). That is, content that is relevant, does not place undue weight (except as it relates to notability) on any single aspect of the subject's life, and is verified by reliable sources is, for me, "good" (for lack of a better term) enough to allay concerns regarding jury influence. Such content would present only the facts and would not overemphasise any positive or negative aspect of the subject's life or of the trial. In short, I do not think a separate provision for sub judice matters is needed because a well-written article that abides by existing policies should not pose a problem. 5533:, not at articles in general. The writing of biographical articles about living people requires good judgment and sensitivity. The potential pitfalls should, in my opinion, be highlighted, and the reasons for wariness be explained. There is mention of "tabloids and scandal sheets" without really explaining what is meant by this. There is also a lack of recognition of the fact that even reputable news sources can be misused by Knowledge editors. The quality of the content should come before the quality of the source. Simply saying "but this has been reported by a reliable source" is 5979:

mention of every single tabloid story about every politician and celebrity. To my mind, information should be included if it is relevant to what the reader wants to read. Are we catering for readers who want to know about a person's political or showbiz career, or are we catering for the reader who wants to know every last detail about this person's life? If it is relevant to their job, then yes. If not, then no. A brief mention (a sentence or footnote), possibly, but not paragraph after paragraph and whole articles based on tabloid newspaper stories. It is not a question of what

6540:

limited to) litigation, as well as financial, political, or employment disputes. If you have been in a real-life dispute with a living person, and you have reliably sourced material about that person that you feel should be added to an article, please post the suggestion succinctly on the relevant talk page, along with reliable sources, then withdraw to avoid the appearance of inappropriate involvement. If your suggestion is removed by another editor as a possible BLP violation, do not restore it. This provision applies to edits about living persons in any article.

6017:

unfounded claims in the furtherance of bad policy, uninterpretable policy. To address your overall point, it would be preferable if Knowledge articles refrained from the kind of interpretive synthesis that makes published biographies sell. Cleaner and more useful is the clear and succinct summarization of established facts. Where interpretation is necessary, it should be properly attributed to the applicable authors/critics/journalists/pundits/whathaveyou. Writing a balanced biography isn't "hard" and doesn't need to be—it should merely refrain from

1363:. Then when you have community agreement that the article should not be deleted, undelete it." I agree with all that. I would add, though: "If you have community agreement that the article should be deleted, then it stays deleted. If there is no community agreement either way, then the article gets undeleted, because lack of consensus defaults to keep." If people think it's necessary to be more explicit, we could add that OFFICE can override the process, where, for example, the Foundation concludes that there's a defamation problem. 1254:" If you don't know the answer to this question then you should not undelete. Are you sure you know the reason for the delete? Do you really understand the legal consequences? Do you really understand copyright law? privacy laws? libel laws? the ability of deep pockets to bankrupt even if they lose a case? Do you really understand the consequences of it becoming a meme that Knowledge is immoral (how could that happen? A suicide or two over true but devestatingly embarrassing "trivia" could wreak havok on wikipedia.) 7399:

human interest article dressed up as an encyclopedia article. If it has any encyclopedic value at all, it is because the media got this particular story badly wrong at first, and it it conceivable that this fragment may be of use one day to illustrate pitfalls of press reportage. The name of the infant is of no encyclopedic import at all; this is the most cut-and-dried case of that. We shouldn't drag his name into it because of what an over-imaginative copy editor did on a slow news day.

6532:

reasons e.g. because they want to use primary sources such as trial transcripts, or they want to highlight certain areas not highlighted by secondary sources, and so on. If they're prevented from adding the material to the article, they engage in protacted discussion on the talk page, which invariably involves posting the disputed material in full to make sure it's picked up by Google. I'd therefore like to add a conflict of interest subsection to the "Preventing BLP violations" section:

31: 5241:"Are sure understand what is meant by "private individual"? It does not mean "someone who has never received media attention". It is indeed possible for private individuals to get media attention, in this case because they are the children of high-profile politicians. You or I could equally get media attention if we were involved in an incident that received a lot of media coverage, or if we started dating a celebrity. However, we would still be entitled to a degree of privacy. 4995:

reading that material while there is not a source cited, even for a minute. There are editors who would twist your change to their POV advantage, trust me. I already put in a lot of time RC and BLP patrolling, and I shouldn't feel required to bear another burden. As I said, nothing in the current policy has ever discouraged me from finding sources. Weakening the wording of this policy, even just a little bit, will wreak havoc on the enforcement of the spirit of this policy. -

3789:

interpretation of things. As far as I'm concerned, one could argue that the claim of the BBC that an individual is a Sunni could be called an identification on the part of the BBC, not a self-identification. Bear in mind that I agree with you on what is considered acceptable, I just don't see how the wording can be reconciled with how you and I see it (and again, with categories I find a strict requirement mostly acceptable, but certainly not in the case of lists).--

5826:. Not "the threshold for inclusion is an agreement among all editors that such information is wanted, or "good for people to read" or "not harmful". Taking Carcharoth's perspective as an entree to policy should be disturbing to editors who value NPOV and the Internet as the instrument of the free flow of factual, unbiased information, as it opens the door to whitewashing, moralism, and all manner of information-control conspiracy. 5559:- your point about "incomplete but notable coverage and incomplete and insignificant coverage" is good. That all ties back to NPOV. For a stub, the insignificant details are not needed, but the most important details are needed. Who they are, what they are, where they are, when they were. After that, the bits that need expansion are the core details of their notable achievements, not the insignificant stuff used to fill newspapers. 2719:

biography we should treat it as any publisher would treat errata. Of course there is a limit to what we can do, there. Where there was a dispute over whether a single source was in error, we'd regard the single source as unreliable or of unknown reliability on that subject, but where the dispute was over several apparently independent, apparently reputable, sources, it might be difficult to write them all off as unreliable. --

4900:. Then, if there are sources found, they can be added. There have been cases where poorly sourced material was left in, and this was defended by editors saying they were "in the process" of getting the sources. This is not acceptable - we first remove the poorly sourced material, and only then, if possible, find sources. Any verbiage about finding sources will dilute the very clear message about immediate removal on sight. 5422:, articles that violate BLP are likely to violate those two as well. Since "BLP consideration" is such a vague term, I really cannot comment further. If most everyone agrees there is a BLP problem, then BLP obviously trumps notability. If there is significant disagreement, then additional consideration is required. All that said, I think "is this really the sort of material that Knowledge is proud to be producing" is 7306:. We can't remove the Tammy part since it is an intrinsic part of the scandal. But even if here full name was identified in a reliable secondary source (I don't know if it was although she was identified), what concerns us here is the event. This is not a biography. Unless she she becomes widely known, there is absolutely no reason why her full name should be identified even if it appeared in a reliable source. 4116:

The same problem arises in sexuality categories. Would we allow someone who has been found in court to have been guilty of repeated contact with minors to be called a "pedarast" or something similar if he himself never used the term, instead choosing something much more vague or convoluted? I acknowledge in this case the vagueness of the phrase "accepting Christ", as he doesn't say what he accepted Christ

2697:(it's OK to remove incorrect information about yourself, but be careful about introducing new material about yourself - it would be better if you could get someone else to do it for you). I notice elsewhere you asked about how to get an acceptable photo of yourself in the article - the easiest way would be for you to upload a photo of yourself with the photographers' agreement to release it under the 239:--it only takes one news cycle for someone's life to be destroyed. By comparison, once someone's been dead a while? It just isn't so likely that one Knowledge page is going to retroactively destroy their reputation, or ruin their (family's?) privacy, or anything like that. It might still happen, but the sense of urgency is gone; if it's an issue, it can be handled the traditional way via AFD. -- 6125:– I agree, with two comments. First, historical people are not covered under BLP. Second, I think this should also extend to notable people who were born or live outside of the United States. There is generally little information available about them, so amassing a complete biography that includes details about childhood, education, employment, marriage, and retirement is generally not possible. ( 5453:– I agree, with two comments. First, historical people are not covered under BLP. Second, I think this should also extend to notable people who were born or live outside of the United States. There is generally little information available about them, so amassing a complete biography that includes details about childhood, education, employment, marriage, and retirement is generally not possible. 6815:, third-party published sources to take material from, and Knowledge biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. 2021:

is still considered living because of the policy which disallows the use of a reliable, yet unverifiable source's claim of his death? This logic is circular in nature, apparently. When Scalzi made the edit, Mr. Saberhagen was clearly deceased, and therefore this policy does not apply. But when it was applied, it was correct because Knowledge had not verified the death of Mr. Saberhagen.

1466:

revisions). But if no explanation was quickly forthcoming, and looking at the recent revisions I could find no such revisions in need of selective deletion, it would be very likely I would undelete it, figuring that in such a case my actions would later be found to be correct. And of course, if there was no such revision that needed to be deleted, and the admin were acting up or making a

258:. Quite often we end up with a built-in fork because a murder is covered in two or more separate articles, one about the murderer and one about the victim. It's always worth considering a merge in such instances. The name of the article isn't that important, but giving it a name other than the name of the victim may sometimes be merited--especially if there is more than one victim. -- 5459:– I think I've basically addressed this in the two points above. We should not create a black-and-white world where complete=good and incomplete=evil. There's nothing wrong with an article of the type: "So-and-so is a member of parliament in India. They've accomplished or are involved in ... ." This kind of article provides biographical information that is relevant to the person's 8132:, which would include the recently dead and those with active estates, etc while excluding historical figures. Of course the ultimate solution would be to just declare that as a reliable and often-accessed information source, Knowledge can and should treat articles about all real people of every with care and scrutiny.... but I might as well be asking for the moon on a stick. 279:"This expression is used in modern parlance with two nearly contradictory significances. In legal contexts, it refers to the principle of British, American, and other legal systems that defaming a deceased person is not actionable. In colloquial contexts, it indicates that it is socially inappropriate to say anything negative about a (recently) deceased person." 7952:

established and it actually making the slightest bit of sense, let alone being beneficial for work here. The very fact that you write "even if" underscores that there's a double standard: Pityful excuses are perfectly allowed, but scientific facts are not, because more often than not, they cannot be sourced in the context of a specific case. --

4649:) that the responsibility of sourcing contentious material lies squarely on the shoulders of the editor wishing to include. This opens yet another loophole for editors who will put crap into articles, and demand that others try to source them. It completely undermines the enforcement of this policy, and needs to be changed back immediately. - 7098:'s parents. It's quite a common thing to have the names of parents in articles but I would argue that it goes against policy to include them - it doesn't add anything to the article unless that person is notable themselves. There may be other cases where it might be worth noting details about them, such as the rags to riches stories. 8283:. That doesn't exist here. In order to use him as a source for himself, you first have to create a certain level of reliability from other sources. In a sense notability and RS are joined at the hip here, reliable sources should be used first to establish him, and his own stuff can be used to flesh it out. That doesn't exist here. 2492:" on any aspect of the subject, positive or negative). Whether particular items/sentences are included or excluded will usually depend on judgments by individual editors, but I do not believe we should treat politicians on the whole any better or worse than others. As for your second question, such evaluations can be requested at the 5955:? This sort of thing is what happens when the yardstick for measuring what we cover is how much the modern media covers something. This ends up pandering to the lowest common denominator and "human interest" stories, rather than proper balance and encyclopedic tone. My other concern is that when faced with articles like 1580:" should be stated up front in the document. I really don't see major benefits of cutting the section down, and I think the additional text holds value in that section. BLP feels like processed food, and the more we work on it the more we lose sight on why we are doing the things we are doing (as in.. the rationale) -- 5432:– From a legal standpoint, we are required only to follow U.S. and Florida State privacy laws (AFAIK). From an editorial standpoint, the laws of different countries shouldn't influence our decisions too much; privacy is contingent on notability, which is contingent on the amount of reliable coverage that is available. 2145:. This is then argued there and there is generally no agreement. Some argue for retention on the grounds that the person is notable. Others argue for deletion if the person is only marginally notable. Of course the article is deleted if the person is not notable, but that is the case who ever proposes the deletion. -- 6904:

whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Knowledge editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

2316:, the principle that Knowledge is not a tabloid, and the fact that we cannot know whether an item of information will be relevant in 20 minutes, let alone 20 years. In essence, I think it's always better to base decisions on known information than speculation about what may or may not be relevant in the future. -- 4055:, as per our page on the subject, has a specific meaning within the Christian community, such that members of only a comparatively small number of Christian groups ever directly refer to themselves as such, and members of other denominations actively shrink from ever using that phrase to describe themselves. 8016:

I'm trying to find out what best practice is in a case of someone notable for one event only, where the policy advises that we cover the event, not the person. I'm dealing with a case where the person's name has been created as a redirect to the article about the event. So far as I know, this creates

7705:

the IP address, traceable to the author. To demand the same standards for clear voicings of personal opinions as for articles is highly problematic. Not the least, it undermines the collaborative effort, since one person might actually know how to find sources for something another person suggests. --

7235:

Reverted. Discuss first. We should include names whenever possible, as it is fundamental information, helps verification, and we're freaking Knowledge for crying out loud. More often than not, us mentioning a name makes no significant impact to that individual. Technically speaking, we could just not

7072:

As a hypothetical example. Suppose John and Ted are in business together. Ted makes uncontroversial statements about the business on his blog, but as currently constructed BLP prevents such statements from being referenced in John's article. Or perhaps a slightly more risque example. John and Ted

6853:

Material from primary sources should be used with great care. For example, public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records, should not be used

6558:

Common sense in action. It's already pretty much implied by the intersection of COI and BLP. We wish to precluse the appropriation of the talk page, which is only a click away (and a likely click for readers as well as editors, as it's entitled "discussion",) as a the very vehicle hostile-COI editors

6370:

As Jaysweet said, I think we need to spell it out and explicitly in some sort of Knowledge policy and say that transgender people should only be referred to under the name and pronoun that they prefer and not the old one. Also, unless the person is publicly out themself as transgender or transsexual,

6278:

Knowledge also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first

6234:

The topic has come up a few times when I was editing articles of transsexual people who didn't want their private information about their past to be "outted" on Knowledge. I'm asking if we can explicitly mention and spell out this application of the policy as an example in the actual page, to make it

6081:

As for your distinction between 'tabloid' and 'mainstream' news media, that is a difficult line to draw. There are many tabloid-type stories that appear in the mainstream media. The content matters as well as the source. You can't point to the source and say the content must be OK. Equally, you can't

5813:

takes Knowledge into very tricky territory. It starts to put value judgments on factual information. I'm fine with this as a matter of course, guiding individual editors in their efforts to improve articles, but as a matter of policy, it is uninterpretable and impractical: (1) It provides no actual

5271:

about someone in an article. If we have an article, then yes, most things that have been covered should be mentioned (always remembering 'due weight'), but if we don't have enough information to write a proper biography of a living person (historical people are different), then the existing facts (if

5144:

Well, I was referring more to NPOV, NOR, and V. In truth, I really don't consider RS separate from V and, were it not for the fact that their separation makes referencing their different components easier, would not oppose their merger. Also, though it may seem odd to note something as obvious as the

4856:

We need to clearly state that poorly sourced material in BLP cases must be removed on sight. That a source can be added is well known, but we shouldn't mention it here, as any additional language will dilute the message and may serve as an excuse to delay the immediate removal, which is mandatory. If

4822:

of adding sources. It gives a very clear prescription: if you see unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, remove it. No questions asked. No extra clarifications. The extra 5 words of "corroborate with proper sources or" adds that needed clarification. You think it's not needed; others think

4686:

I agree entirely with you. It makes a quantum leap that utterly changes the burden of proof. Checking whether something is verifiable ought to be an easy matter (click on the reference and go to the source; no reference, remove). The replacement wording puts up a barrier of inertia (can I be bothered

4133:

And again, accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, as popularly mocked as that phrasing has become, is really what makes you a "Christian", in any case. You cannot operate with such a narrow definition of "Christianity" or "religion", as Christianity is so diverse that there is every possible range

3788:

Well, I'm satisfied with that kind of thing as well, but I think that the term "self-identification" would lead many people to require that the person give a statement from their own mouths along the lines of "I am X". Such a requirement is very problematic, but I've seen a few editors argue for this

3758:

something in particular, be entirely involved with it, and spend a good deal discussing matters which are related to it, but without the "I am" statement, couldn't be categorized as such. This, to me, shows a flaw in the requirement. Please tell me that the intended term of self-identification is not

3461:

You're focusing on "advantage" here, but the important thing is to stop this policy being violated. Protecting a page won't stop an editor who is intent on publishing the disputed material; typically he'll publish it on the talk page or copy it to his own userspace. In the extreme case, you have to

3421:

an advantage. Throwing in the right to block at will during a content dispute involving any BLP content is much more than that. Also, if the disputed content is of such a nature that the admin is unwilling to risk publicising it even one bit by posting at ANI or elsewhere (there's still the option of

1655:

on Knowledge. These are articles about people who are only notable for being related to a celebrity and virtually always consist of nothing but embarrassing incidents that are the fodder of tabloid (and these days, mainstream) newspaper articles. It is virtually impossible to keep these articles NPOV

902:

thinks there's a BLP violation, and deletes an article or part of an article, the deletion stands unless there's a consensus to reverse it? That seems to give way too much power to what's supposed to be a mop-and-bucket position. In practice, it would mean that the current rule -- lack of consensus

742:

It would probably help if this section were clarified to help resolve a potential question. Specifically regarding situations where the subject's religious views have changed, but the subject had previously self-identified as an adherent of the belief system s/he has since abandoned. Does the policy,

437:

The ArbCom's decision in this case quotes this policy, but appears to add more definition with the line: "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy." with regard to editors who want to restore a BLP article that

8352:

I've noted an extremely frequent albeit inconsistent habit by writers of referring to their subjects by first name. This is especially common in articles about people in the arts and popular culture. This habit instantly lends an unprofessional and pov quality to the articles, and can lead a reader

7980:

our job to gather information, whether it's positive or negative. And what I see some people doing here especially in the cyclist field is an inch away of aiding and abetting in the cover-up of activity that is criminal in some countries. Not to mention that they have no hesitation to slander living

7975:

And I don't think you're getting the point the IP makes. If you say "84.46.10.148 is a child-molestor", yes, it is a statement of fact, but a statement of fact BY YOU, and not by Knowledge. It is completely irrelevant if it's sourced, unsourced or whatever. If the person has an issue with you making

7578:

The article has little if any value but won't be deletable until the fuss dies down. Obviously we shouldn't needlessly broadcast the names of private individuals, and most especially infants. I don't believe it would be at all correct to say that this most basic element of human decency has little

7462:

No you misunderstand the individual case--the Baby 81 story was originally this weird tale of nine sets of parents all claiming the same child. This alone made the case newsworthy. Children become separated from their parents in natural tragedies, it happens. The news story (which turned out to be

7275:

I can't see what the article was about, but from the AfD comments it sounds like some internet meme. I'm not big on keeping such articles (some, maybe, but the whole meme thing is just.. gah). So, no, I would not have likely supported keep. Clearly, there will be situations where excluding a name is

6410:

Also, I very slightly disagree about Sonjaaa's criteria for when it should be named in the article. If a person has been widely "outted" in the mainstream media, Knowledge should at least cover that aspect even if the person in question doesn't like it. I mean, imagine if it turned out George Bush

5047:(EC) OK, I think we can work off of this. Slight changes in placement, wording, and so on can still be made, but I think we've agreed on the principle that the option of corroboration should not be noted in a way that weakens the wording of the policy or suggests that removal may be delayed. Cheers, 4768:

The National Enquirer is not a reliable source. I've heard arguments that suggest otherwise here at Knowledge, but I disagree. The National Enquirer is a tabloid; it is not a reliable source, and to repeat anything the Enquirer said is to toss out any standard of reliability. Tabloid crap doesn't

4251:

I've restored that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material should be removed. Michael changed it to "unsourceable" i.e. OR. But it's not only OR that should be removed, but anything that is contentious and unsourced. If people want to find a reliable source, that's fine, of course, and then

4115:

Without meaning to get too needlessly obsessed on details, I don't see the difference between "accepting Christ" (which presumably is a shorter form of something like "accepting Christ as your personal lord and saviour", which seems to be the more standard complete phrasing), and being a Christian.

3701:

To be honest, I don't view my edit as a change to the policy. BLP applies to all biographical (of living persons) content, irrespective of where it is located (with an exception for talk pages and user pages). The idea that lists of people should have well-defined and monitored inclusion criteria is

3082:

I don't particularly like "compassion" either. While that may seem great, approaching a subject with "compassion" leads to a lack of neutrality just as surely as approaching it with hatred would, just the other direction. What's wrong with simply saying that articles on living people must be held to

2829:

it. Compassion, rightly or wrongly, is invoking a sense of "biased in favour of a flattering view" - I assume this isn't what's intended (since it would conflict with both encyclopaediousity, and neutral point of view) - so is there some adjective(s) that everyone would be happy with? To be honest,

2688:

then it can't go in. Of course, though we like our verifiable sources to be online, just out of laziness, it's not strictly necessary; in your case, surely there must be a lot of references to your activities in Hansard from before the time it started appearing online? I would also caution you to be

2532:

I should add that the subject of the article is still active in local politics, is clearly still highly respected (in some quarters at least) as he is chairman of the town's chamber of commerce, president of his local temple, and a board member of the township's land trust. He appears to be a lawyer

2288:

Should we write as if we were looking back from a future when the candidate has retired from political life and choose only those events which are notable in his entire life or should we give more leeway for items that might be notable today as possibly relevant to the political campaign even though

2258:

This policy is one of the few that are designed to be prescriptive rather than merely descriptive. If community members decide to allow libel, or allow illegal privacy violations, or allow deliberately non neutral articles, or allow articles to stay that are merely tabloid or attack pieces; then the

2034:

As you can see, the whole argument and 'edit war' relating to Mr. Saberhagen has left me with a lot of questions, and I believe these questions stem from the fact that there is no clear definition of who is living and who is deceased. I think, for clarity's sake, there should be a definition of the

1881:

The restriction: "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." under the Sources heading has been shown to have a flaw. Some people knowledgeable in specific fields maintain blogs

592:

We've adopted this policy in spite of some significant unease in parts of the community. It has strong implications, which are sometimes denied by people who are uncomfortable with it. Where those implications are ignored and this leads to harm, the arbitration committee may sometimes have to step

509:

The line is ambiguous and shouldn't be added unless there's clarification about who assesses whether the burden has been fulfilled. Otherwise, some people will interpret it as meaning, "He has the burden of proof and I don't think he's met that burden -- I still consider the article noncompliant in

343:

are allowed to withstand the editorial and deletion process because of your weak policy, then Knowledge will never be a true encyclopedia. I urge you all to revisit this issue and take a stronger position. Not even my daughter’s first grade teacher would have allowed her to use a tabloid in any of

329:

I am working on an article which is a bio of a living person and about 50% of the information in the article is garnered from one single tabloid source. This policy states that “Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets”, emphasis on avoid. This is a very weak

311:

died all kinds of muck came out, partly because during his lifetime he was so effective in using litigation and threats of litigation to silence journalists, partly because he himself was a major newspaper proprietor and could pull strings, and partly because he kept his financial malfeasance hidden

195:

Since deletion discussions are debates, you can raise whatever argument you like in them, whether they come from a policy page, an essay or whether you just made it up on the spot. Of course, sometimes an argument based on policy is going to be stronger than one that isn't, but most of the time it's

113:

A number of murder victims, such as people involved in 9/11 etc, are seen on AfD, and BLP1E is often used (and I use it too) when stating that just because the person was a victim, they are not inherently notable for anything else in their life. The thing is though, defense is usually thrown up that

8257:

Should we even have an article on him, in this case? I'm not asking about Notability criteria, as there's a separate discussion going on about that: someone who is asserted to be Mark Hucko has invented a constructed pan-Slavic language that a couple people on the internet have written articles in.

7704:

Someone here on the talk page stated "with the exception of talk pages", whereas the actual project page includes talk pages. Talk page statements are clearly personal opinion of the one making them, not official Knowledge position. They're signed by the individual making them, and at the least via

7677:

Agree with Mackensen and Viridae, et cetera. Knowledge is not tabloid journalism, and I would not feel comfortable in some circumstances naming a person that reliable sources purposely decline to name, but at the same time I don't think we should second-guess the choice of reliable sources to give

7442:

Tony, we're not talking about an "over-imaginative copy editor" here. We're talking about professional editors at several highly respected and reputable publications, all deciding that publication of the name is acceptable and appropriate. As much as I'm sure you know better than all of them, let's

6994:

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional

6773:

that's classified as a stub. I think it's reasonable for the article to exist, because there are a number of links to it, some of which predated the article. But I think it says all about me that an encyclopedia needs to say - I'm not really important enough to justify more. I don't see anything in

6660:

Biographies include the exact date the LP was born. In the USA, one's birthdate is an important part of establishing identity. Identity theft is much easier when the birthdate of the target person is known. Many times, a person's social security number is accidentally revealed, but that alone is

6577:

It's an interesting proposal. However, and don't take this the wrong way, the impression I get is that you are trying to build a general case from a specific case, so that it can be applied to a specific case. Policy shouldn't be tailored to fit specific cases. There is also too much self-reference

6531:

I've recently noticed a few disputes arising from edits to BLPs made by people who've been involved in litigation, or some other real-life conflict, with the subject. One party arrives at Knowledge to add details of the dispute to the other party's BLP. It almost always leads to trouble for various

6085:

Finally, your point about current news stories falling off the radar a few weeks, months or years later, that would be fine if it worked that way, but the tendency is for things to stick if they are left. Also, that would require a disclaimer long the lines of "some of our articles may have a froth

6016:

No Wikipedian is peeping over Al Gore III's fence, quizzing his neighbors, going through his trash. There's no original research. There is, however, summarization of official statements made by authorities and published by reliable, respected media sources. Essentially, your argument above makes

5937:

None of these items is trivial to a biography, even a BLP, if the subject is deemed to be independently notable. I would be happy to debate the relative merits of any of these items. Your position seems to be that certain of these should be omitted in BLPs, especially if not all the others can be

5861:

quite rightly pours cold water on that idea. Though to clarify somewhat, please remember that the arguments here should primarily apply to articles on living people, not to all articles. As such, Knowledge editors should not over-emphasize verifiability and notability in BLP articles at the expense

5214:

Should this policy be applied as a last resort? ie. Should we encourage editors and admins to try editing articles and referring to other polices instead of, or as well as this one, before going for the step of deletion? What I fear is that excessive use of this policy will lead to it being watered

5145:

fact that BLP-compliant content can be re-inserted, it is probably no more odd than providing guidance on how to fix a sourcing problem without mentioning the option of adding a source. In any case "conforms to this policy" is undoubtedly the best wording since sourcing is often not the only issue.

4778:

I agree. By "merge back into the main article", I meant that the "substance abuse controversy" shouldn't have been allowed to grow to the extent where it needed its own article. Part of the merging would involve editing the content right down until only a paragraph appears in the main article. The

3660:

Although it's obvious that editors decide what goes concerning policies, I'm a little troubled that such a large change can be added nonchalantly. I understand the concept of being bold, but this is policy, not an article on starfish, so a little more care should be taken when adding or taking away

3340:

Blocks should be on the menu in these circumstances. It doesn't matter who performs the block. A typical situation would be an editor who persistently reproduces disputed content on the same or a different wiki page. The administrators most likely to be on top of the situation are those who have

2718:

Verifiability is tied to reliability. If there are incorrect statements from sources we normally regard as reliable, please let us know in email (info-en@wikipedia.org) and we'll do our best to fix the problem. For instance if a biographer has made an error and we've propagated the error from the

2284:

In the heat of a political campaign there may be events that are notable - or more likely that supporters or opponents want to highlight - but those events may be piddling details in the long-term big picture. If twenty years from now somebody wrote a biography those details might be too small even

2020:

What determines how this policy is applied to deceased persons, or reportedly deceased persons? Is a person only considered deceased when a verifiable source surfaces, according to policy? Does the policy apply, in the case of Quatloo's argument, to Mr. Fred Saberhagen's article simply because he

1224:

I think the initial admin deletion is the effective equivalent of an AfD speedy delete, so subsequent undeletion should require consensus. Otherwise, we invite wheelwars. In BLP cases we prefer to err on the side of caution – no damage will be done to anyone if the undeletion takes a little longer,

1212:

And, was reverted without explanation, apparently that's in dispute as well. When did the "no consensus" default change to "delete"? As I recall, making such a change was discussed here a while back, and there was certainly no consensus to implement it, so as far as I know, "no consensus to delete"

1045:

Yep. To clarify, I don't think Tony Sidaway taking someone to arbcom is some big stigma. The Arbitration Committee could well say "the guy did his best and that's all we ask of anyone", or they could take the case and clarify their view , which could well have matured in the meantime. We depend

234:

of BLP1E to argue for a deletion of a (relatively) long-dead person on AFD, or borrow arguments from it; but I don't think that BLP itself should cover such a thing. You have to remember that the reason why BLP is weighted towards removing and deleting things quickly is because news about a living

7965:

instances be a hiderance to work, that's kind of irrelevant. BLP is primarily about being fair to living people, not about making an editor's work easy. And the BLP talk page policy is needed. I have and will always delete on sight any completely unsourced speculation about living people. It's not

7926:

Don't stretch my replication of a quote too far. It has previously been at the top of the BLP policy page. That's where I got it. It doesn't cover the subject completely, only covering the basic humanitarian principles behind the policy. If a subject is of importance and is well sourced, it can be

7903:

Nope. Talk page is talk page and article body is article body. Two VERY different things. An encyclopedia also isn't a fanzine. It shouldn't exclude "the evil that men do" just because it detracts from their reputation. They had time to think about that before they did it. You're opening the gates

7624:

I apologise if I've misrepresented you. I think it is a fairly uncontroversial statement that the article Baby 81 makes perfect sense without the incidental information of the name of the child. The only purpose in having the name would be to make a link between the child and the story, but as I

7301:

A good example would probably be an eyewitness. Unless that eyewitness has been widely interviewed and almost deserving of an article, then it seems to me there is little point identifying that eyewitness as Gary Kenneth Williams (completely made up example). Another example would be in stuff like

7291:

Do you have examples that don't make this sound weird? Generally, I believe that if a person is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article then they are worth naming. I'm sympathetic to the idea that we may want to avoid mentioning people and events, but not to the extent that we talk about the

7276:

good, but my point is that we shouldn't view that as a default. The majority of articles involving living people will not have an issue with naming the living person. Tony's edit suggested that we not even consider including a name, even if harm or whatever had yet to be brought up/conceivable. --

6911:

states that it is "excess/redundant text." However, there is nothing in the current policy which says that articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage. There is nothing in the current policy regarding those who are notable for being victims. And there is nothing in the current policy

6200:

is there a wikipedia policy known as "wikipedia is not a tabloid" or similar... with guidelines that say to not dig up embarassing personal or private information about a living person and post it in their article? I'm thinking for example if a transsexual person does not want their old name to be

6110:

Recognize the different situation with regards to sources for historical people (by which I mean those that lived before the 20th century when there were less sources reporting on people and less of those sources have survived). Some of these have incomplete biographies, but that is due to lack of

6058:

On the invasion of privacy point, you've quoted me out of context. What I said in full was "...(where only a few shreds of information are available), the attitude seems to be to keep the article and try and find the missing information to make it balanced. To me, that is invading his privacy, and

5978:

To put this another way, you say "If a subject is deemed to be notable, then no nontrivial, verifiable information about that subject should be perforce excluded only because one or another editor finds the information disagreeable." - this to me seems to open the doors to including on Knowledge a

5279:

5168:

I think the BLP guidelines ought to spell out that they apply globally. In my wikignoming activities, I often see casual accusations of involvement in terrorism, drug-smuggling, or opposition politics, made without any proper source at all. Knowledge is available globally, perhaps even to secret

5130:

BF, BLP originally derived from NPOV, NOR, and V (never RS), but now there are many more issues covered here than there, so "conforms to this policy" would be correct. I think it's a little strange to add that once material conforms to the policy, it can be restored, because that's obviously true,

4219:

No, it's a bad idea that does not fit with the special case of categories that are added without explanation to articles. Lists are comparable to articles. The applicable policies are WP:V and WP:RS. There is no reason to single out lists as opposed to other articles (and there was no reason for a

2976:

I think this does miss a little bit of a point, which is a rehash of the NPOV "undue weight" clause - when I see "fairness" or "justness" I don't mean including of excluding things in life that are or aren't fair, but giving a fair, or balanced view of someone, rather than an unfair, or unbalanced

2380:

so that I myself will do the right thing. I was hoping to do this at an abstract level but I suppose I will have to be more specific. There is a situation that I think violates BLP. The editor has been active for less than a month so probably is not an expert on BLP. I've been active for about two

2280:

In biographies of political candidates, it is not surprising that some people want to add (or remove) material to glorify or deprecate that person. Should the rules be any different for an article about such a person? They are covered by the section, "Well known public figures" but is that enough?

1747:

Due to my masochistic nature I've been trying to patrol the relatives-of-politicians articles (both Democrat and Republican). I'm usually successful at moderating the strong POV-tendancies that these articles attract, but not without significant and sustained effort where I end up having to repeat

1674:

But what about when there is, for instance, an article on a career criminal? There is no way to write such an article without referencing all their crimes, but that looks a lot like a coatrack article. BLP is simply too powerful to put things in it which have a potential for any reasonable misuse.

1272:

for is the usurpation of the community's role in deciding its course, because what I see happening here is that what's intended to be done is to first change the policy, do a bunch of stuff under it, browbeat anyone who disagrees into shutting up (and in some cases drive them off the project), and

1029:

clueful behavior with regard to certain issues (legal issues because of financial results and moral issues because of community results) and we have no real mechanism for ensuring clueful behavior. So we rely on admins who if they screw up lose their adminship. We need to do better. But this is as

334:

policy is also weak. It does not make any statement about tabloids such as “Knowledge is not a tabloid.“. I, along with a group of editors, have been trying to get the article I just mentioned revised and/or deleted but can not because of these two weak policies. Knowledge is an encyclopedia.

7168:

Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved

6698:

Is there any policy on havning an article titled by persons real name? I know in other areas of WP, there is such a policy. For example radio and broadcast TV, article have to be named by their call sign. So if a station is known as "power 99" and not by its call it doesn't matter. The article is

6539:

Off-wiki personal disputes should never be allowed to spill over into the editing of BLPs. Editors who have been involved in off-wiki conflict with the subject of a BLP should not edit that BLP or engage in protracted discussion on its talk page. Examples of off-wiki conflict include (but are not

6304:

are the sort of relevant areas - it's hard to enumerate all potential examples of this. Nonetheless, Privacy of Birthdates, Contact Information and Names might be collapsed into a more general thought, which could included elucidated and unelucidated criteria ... if you've some proposal, you can

5391:

unless it is being overinterpreted. I think that the wording of the BLP policy, focusing so heavily on removal and very little on improvement, has created the impression that BLP = deletion. If an article has any real or potential BLP concerns, deletion isn't always necessary and shouldn't be the

4559:

Thanks, that helps a lot. I hadn't done much with The Cunctator's second paragraph before now, but on review I'm sure it can be tightened up and improved further. I definitely agree with the second point, the first is perhaps less critical but "contentious" is a good default adjective throughout.

4064:

But other denominations refer to themselves as "Christians" and there is no evidence Dylan ever did. He is on record as accepting Christ, and condemning religion. The list in question is not of people who accepted Christ, but people who accepted the Christian religion. There can be a difference.

3776:

I personally not view it to be so restrictive. If the BBC (a reliable source) classifies someone as a Sunni, for instance, that's good enough for me. If you think the current wording does not reflect that idea, please change it as appropriate. I will leave the issue of claryfing the boundaries of

3743:

What is meant by public self-identification, though? What if there's an instance where one denies their previous religious commitments? This is where secondary sources really play into the equation and we're really not supposed to interpret primary source information anyways -- reliable secondary

3317:

There is no prior discussion that I'm aware of. I thought I'd make the change and see if stuck. My reasoning was as follows: editors in good standing can have genuine disagreements about whether particular content complies with the BLP policy. In cases where the issue is a content dispute and not

3103:

The word "sympathy" or "sympathetic" shouldn't be used. However there is a right and a wrong way to write about bad things. This statement is intended to address the distinction between the journalistic approach and the encyclopedic approach. We report the verifiable facts, and the significant

2919:

We can and do have our personal biases; however, we must be impartial when it comes to writing article content. We can consider someone who raped and killed and 4-year-old to be evil, twisted, or repulsive, but we can't write that in the article. We can consider someone who shields a child from a

2701:

or one of the Creative Commons licences (these are selected from a drop-down menu when you upload a picture). Finally, I'd just like to say welcome to Knowledge, your presence is appreciated (even though I'd never vote for your party!) - you couldn't persuade your recently-retired former opposite

1897:

This issue could be resolved by the addition of the word "salacious" at the beginning of the sentence that I am contending has a flaw. This would seem to specify what the policy was intended to combat while allowing reports that may not yet meet Quatloo's exceedingly strict standards. I contend

1111:

I'm aware of the ArbCom precedents you've been pimping so hard Tony. Rest assured that you've missed critical parts of my belief above which should make it clear to the clueful why my belief matches reality. The ArbCom members are not stupid, and they won't something immensely dumb just for the

912:

Such a change could not be implemented under the guise of interpreting an ArbCom ruling, because the ArbCom doesn't have the authority to change a policy, let alone a policy as fundamental as the role of consensus. If some people think that the current policy is open to the interpretation above,

211:

I don't necessarily oppose applying BLP1E to the recently dead, but it's hard not to see a very big slippery slope argument going on here. BLP1E is, at heart, a sensible policy, as there are many occasions when very real BLP issues arise from having an article on someone only known for one thing;

8031:

If it is decided that we have the name in the article itself then a redirect would be sensible. Google will pick up the name in the article but not give it quite as high priority as an article title (including redirects). This won't make much difference if the name doesn't get many hits. More

7737:

Sorry, but I don't think you get the point. Discussing the article per definiton implies stating opinions on it. If I say that I believe that section XYZ should be eliminated, I am stating my personal opinion. If I say that information XYZ should be included, I am stating a personal opinion. And

7398:

I agree with Ned's assessment that the import of my edit is that we absolutely shouldn't even consider using this name of a completely private person. Nothing encyclopedic is gained by it. I usually find that I agree with Mackensen, but I don't here. The whole article itself is no more than a

6032:

and ABC World News Tonight aren't tabloid media. In the cases that certain timely details aggregated from the media into Knowledge articles with time become irrelevant and "fall off the map", they can be properly discarded from an article, satisfying your concern about biographies being just "a

5845:

excluded, as merely including them can give undue weight that type of information. The threshold for inclusion is not just verifiability, as WP:NOT clearly states: "merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia". The statement in

5844:

should be applied first, and even if someone is notable and the information is verifiable, it should not necessarily be included. NPOV does not mean "include everything". It means include everything needed to give a balanced article. Trivial information and non-encyclopedic information should be

4421:

I'm not claiming the policy says any such thing, the issue is whether people carrying out the policy are adequately considering the option. Omitting it from discussion leaves an emphasis, as The Cunctator puts it, "that encourages non-collaborative behavior and rewards assumptions of bad faith."

3303:

I've restored the phrase "even if they have been editing the article themselves." to the provision for administrators to renforce the removal of poorly sourced or unsourced material with page protection and blocks. This policy has long overriden concerns such as this, and the wording (which was

1525:

Knowledge articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Knowledge is a top-ten website, and with such prominence comes a measure of responsibility. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion and understanding. The Foundation and Jimbo

1263:

All of those things are conceivably possible. I won't say they're tremendously likely, but they're possible. And if I were to contact the deleting admin, and (s)he said "Hey, the guy's friend contacted me, the guy's threatening suicide and he's pretty sure the guy's serious. He's checking into a

806:

converts to another religion, possibly by becoming an active member of it, but never explicitly states that s/he has converted "from" the previous religion. I suppose in those instances, when the prior known religion of the party is known, it might be possible to categorize them as a "Convert to

578:

Thanks for the discussion. I'm concerned when I see people using ArbCom rulings as justifications for their actions since it isn't clear that ArbCom rulings constitute policy. If an ArbCom decision appears to clarify, redefine, or expand on policy, I think we should discuss incorporating their

7812:

that way, as it stands, it is chilling. An encyclopedia is based on gathering and processing information, and if we disallow bringing information on the table, we're hindering work on the encyclopedia. The fact that talk pages are publicly viewable in no way detracts from the fact that they are

7076:

I'd like some suggestions on addressing this. One of the things worth discussing, in my opinion, is the degree to which the BLP privledge lies with "biography pages" versus "biographical information". Specifically, a rule that only John can self-publish material that can be included on John's

6744:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. ... Names of Knowledge articles should be optimized for readers over

5569:

to writing a BLP. The key points I was making is that in many cases "no true biography has been written yet", and that professional biographers would not write biographies of a living person this way. In essence, unless a biography has been published that can be used to guide the structure of a

4712:

regarding the question of whether to include a mention of an article that appeared in the National Enquirer, which cited unidentified "family sources" as saying that Bush had been drinking in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. After being one of those who originally raised the question of whether a

3368:

The administrator editing the page may be on top of the situation, but it takes less than 5 minutes to get someone else's attention: post at AIV, post ANI, post AN, post on a talk page, e-mail someone. Again, I'm not objecting to temporary protections of the page, but I believe blocking to gain

1465:

citing BLP as the reason, I'll certainly be quickly contacting them to ask what the hell's going on (though I would do that, at least, sometimes certain types of vandalism do require selective version deletion, and the only way to do that is to delete the page and restore it minus the offending

7951:

Yes, we "already established that". That doesn't change anything about the fact that a talk page is something fundamentally different, and that any policy which pretends otherwise has some serious issues distinguishing editorial work from content. There's a difference between that policy being

7747:

Have you ever known the present policy to be enforced like that? I agree that that is one way of interpreting it, but I've never heard of anyone getting yelled at or reverted for a comment like the example you gave. Heh, as it turned out, I made an almost identical content on a BLP Talk page

6915:

As this is an official ruling of the arbcom which they consider to be "implicit" in the policy even though any logician would be hard-pressed to show how to derive such an implication from the existing text, it is obviously essential that people referring to this policy see what the arbcom has

6903:

Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Knowledge articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Knowledge aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects,

6293:

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm." Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living

4994:

editors is to remove poorly sourced or unsourced material. The burden to find a source rests only on those editors who wish to include the material. This is the law from Jimbo. Technically, the material should be removed even while you are doing a google search. None of our "viewers" should be

4716:

I wanted to take a step back from the issue, so I haven't continued the low-grade revert conflict that we'd fallen into. But I'm concerned that in its current state the article might not be doing justice to the topic, or to the requirements of NPOV, and I would feel better if some folks with a

4174:

Again, keeping all these things in mind, we should not be interpreting the utterances of the individual in question. Primary sources breed OR interpretations. As you can see, there are two interpretations of a single phrase being exhibited here, though I would put all my eggs into one of those

1559:

If an anon IP address or a new account turns up to blank a page about a living person, or a section of it, it may well be the subject. Try not to act aggressively, but instead engage the person in dialogue, and check that the article in question does not contain any unsourced or poorly sourced

7073:

have a publicly notable dispute (think candidates for political office), someone includes references to a press release issued by John, but in an article on John we couldn't include any reference to the press release issued by Ted, and hence coverage of the dispute can end up being one sided.

3946:

since leaving it. This however does raise what may be one of the more contentious points of involvement here. This change is intended to deal primarily with sexual and religious content. How would this policy apply in the event of an act of a sexual and/or religious nature which is apparently

2999:

I basically agree, but am worried that "fairness" is too easily interpreted as moral/ethical/subjective fairness, rather than fairness in reporting). Impartial does not necessarily imply unconcerned; there are people I like and am (in a sense) concerned about, but I can still write about them

2312:, then there is no reason to remove the item; if the source is unreliable, then the item may be removed. On your first point, I think it requires case-by-case evaluation. Any decision to include or exclude such content (assuming for the moment that it is reliably sourced) must be based in the 753:

The short answer is "it's not procluded, but make sure it's a)relevant and b)clear that it's a former association". Identifying Johnny Nobody as a former Zoroastrian is not the same as identifying him as a Zoroastrian - after his converstion to Discordianism, he might not want to be called a

611:

If regulars keep having to say "don't take it personally" over and over and over, there's something deeply defective in the process that will be damaging to the encyclopedia project, even if you have a ready list of reasons why you absolutely have to do whatever the thing is people are taking

219:

in the case of the recently dead. There are many, many cases throughout history where someone's death is in and of itself notable; to run around deleting this sort of article because BLP1E exists is taking a sensible policy and twisting it well beyond the plane of anything that might pass for

8353:

to wonder if the article were simply copied and pasted from promo materials for the artist. It can be tedious as hell for other people to have to change all those first names to last names. If there's a consensus on this, perhaps it should be addressed here in the section on writing style.

6513:

I think one can reasonably ask, "Why would it matter?", but bios contain lots of information that is not particularly important beyond giving a person's, well, biography. If multiple mainstream sources thought it was important enough to report on, then I think there's your test right there.

5582:, rather than a biography. I sometimes see claims for featured biographies of living people (where there is no published biography) that they are "the best article on Person A on the internet" - which isn't really a good thing, in my opinion. That feels too much like "we've written the first 3628:

There is a case dealing with religious info, and I though it was an appropriate request to make of them, and I do believe that they have the authority to do so. I don't think I'm asking for anything new, just a clarification of what the reasoning behind the category rules is. When we apply a

1689:

It is completely different when the crimes are notable in and of themselves. For example, no matter how many speeding tickets I get, I'm never going to get an article in Knowledge. The type of articles I'm talking about are basically lists of otherwise non-notable facts: public intoxication,

964:

admin can delete the article, even without consensus (not against consensus, just without it), and thereafter the article can't be undeleted because there's no consensus for undeletion. That's why I wrote that, even though the rule still states that lack of consensus defaults to "keep", the

6447:

Okay, but what about a highly notable person whose private information has been revealed by multiple mainstream sources against their will? In that case, I think the closest analog is the policy on birthdates. Care should be taken when disclosing birthdates that are not well-known, or are

4120:(maybe his gardener?). Also, I wonder if there is no definition of "self-identification", as there doesn't seem to be, if maybe the phrasing of that clause could be changed to something more clear, or if a separate section somewhere on the meaning of "self-identification" could be created. 4839:

objected to the revised text added by Michael Snow, which has nothing to do with my edit. In addition, you noted in your edit summary that "it's a given that an editor can always source", yet also call my edit "a change to a core policy". Well, your edit summary was more accurate: it's a

7663:

As I indicated in the post mentioned above, the inclusion of the name within the article and the inclusion of the article within the encyclopedia are two fundamentally different propositions. However, if we're going to have the article, then, per Viridae, the name should be included.

4074:

To an extent, I agree with the above. However, the group with which he actively chose to involve himself, and seems to have baptized him, is clearly and explicitly self-described as "Christian". To an extent, I see part of the problem here is once again potentially a refusal to use a

2977:

description. Fairness in this sense isn't quite the same as "impartial", but it's quite similar. Impartial also connotates "unconcerned" - which I think is wrong - we should be concerned that biographies leave fair impressions of people - that doesn't mean that the biography of the

3602:

I have asked the arbcom to extend the language to include any article content that uses wikipedia's voice regarding religion and sexual orientation, making it subject to the same criteria. I brought it up there during a pending case, but we can do the same thing here by consensus. -

4874:

on sight. Removal is a form of correction, but not the only form. There is no dilution of that message to be had from the addition of those 5 words. If your concern is misinterpretation and delayed removal, I would fully support adding the following sentence (or something like it):

7748:

myself, and it wasn't a problem. In practice, a guarded statement like you made would always be tolerated. It's more to prevent comments like, "XYZ is true but some jerk keeps reverting me, even though I read it in The Sun! Why is Knowledge being censored, people need to know!"

2259:

policies regarding those things would not be changed to reflect a new claimed accurate description - instead people who would destroy Knowledge by such behaviors are eliminated from the community or are educated that there are limits to what policy changes the community may make.

7220:

Basically I've removed a lot of stuff that conflicted with "Knowledge isn't a newspaper archive." If a name is not necessary we don't use it. You don't want your name to appear in Knowledge because of some random tragedy. We cannot stop the newspapers doing this to us, but we

5543:- I should have phrased the "proud of" bit better. What I meant to say was that, similar to the point above about reliable source, ie. the decision-making process shouldn't be "it's a reliable source; it's a notable person; this means it is OK to include this information", the 8293:

but you would need to get old archived records to associate it with Hucko as it was dissolved in 1980 and his name isn't on the operating license but would be in the articles of incorporation. How notable a claim is it to found something in 1979, that was dissolved in 1980?

1916:, in which the individual who wrote the blog also placed a link to it at the end of that individual's entry. This is purely an academic argument, no salaciousness involved. Straightforward language to disallow this is necessary. I think your case is simply an exception. - 169:

This policy applies only to the living. While people here can argue and rant that it does or should apply to the dead as well it is clear that as it stands only living people are covered. Citing BLP1E is therefore not correct, but the reasoning behind it can still apply.

6336:

as an example, it seems the de facto standard is to recognize the the name the person wishes to be identified by and use the pronoun they now identify with. Which makes sense and seems to be the most sensitive approach. It might be worthwhile to spell that policy out in

4926:

I'd be happy with the extra text you propose if it came after removal - "Alternatively, you can corrobate it with proper sources." - as this would clarify beyond doubt that it's not a condition that you attempt to corroborate before removal. (Corroboration can take ages.)

3178:

That doesn't mean much when they failed to define what they meant by "human dignity". If some of the greatest philosophers could not agree over the course of over two millenia, I doubt ArbCom will during the course of our lifetime. I am restoring the original wording. --

6467:, and for that matter is emphatic that you should do so. There may be a way to rework it to make this clearer if it isn't already, but a "comprehensive list of unsourced statements you can't make about people" is going to be a)very long and b)probably not that helpful. 5661:- You are correct that a professional biography would not be written this way, but I think the block-by-block construction of an article is inherent to the nature of an open wiki. Given this, I'm not sure about the utility of a disclaimer for the reason outlined in the 5697:

Oh, I wasn't serious about the disclaimer. Just trying to word one that would make some editors realise why their approach can cause problem. This "piecemeal approach" to writing articles is sometimes a strength of a wiki, but we should be aware that it can also be a

1264:

mental hospital in a few days, I'll undelete it once I've confirmed he's there", then sure, there's no way in the world I'd undelete, and that's why you contact the deleting admin before you do anything else. On the other hand, if the other admin basically just says "

6966:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics'

438:

an admin has deleted for violating BLP policy. Since it appears that ArbCom doesn't set policy, this statement needs community acceptance before being added to the current policy. Thus, I'm submitting to the community that this line be added to the current policy.

5512:

First, thanks for your detailed responses, it is very gratifying to get this level of feedback. I won't respond to every response, as we are in agreement on several points. I just want to clarify some of the points raised. I will use the titles you gave each point.

4138:

does not add "the religion of" into that title. Christianity is a religion for some, and may be described as a "philosophy", a "relationship", a "way of life", etc. by others. Again, considering these alternate phrasings, we should remember what defines "religion":

2068:

On the other hand, there are several living people with bios on WP who are so marginal that they will be mentioned in perhaps four or five reliable sources altogether. If, say, a Times correspondent in South Africa were to discuss on his blog a particular member of

8174:

That sounds like a very reasonable solution, and I support it. I still find something vaguely disturbing about the implication that there's a certain point at which an inaccurate, libelous or hurtful biography matters less than it once did. In my wikiphilosophy,

6432:

to be the kind of stuff Sonjaaa is talking about. I don't think she's says "Openly transsexual gender identity rights activists and people who star in Chicks with Dicks pornography shouldn't have their transgender status mentioned". That seems a bit far, agreed.

5105:

Yes, I agree with the change. I initially thought of changing "conforms to this policy" to "conforms to this and other policies", but then realised that this policy essentially derives from and incorporates the other policies and guidelines (NPOV, NOR, V, and RS).

4830:

At least three editors (myself, User:Roger Davies, and User:Crum375, have registered strong objection in the past few hours to the change you want to make. You need to build consensus further before making a change to a core policy. - Crockspot 19:29, 15 July 2007

6703:

being a redirect to wpvi-tv, and not the otherway around, depite wpvi calls never used over air (outside station IDing. Thats how that section of WP works, and i'm just wondering if the same standard applies for WP BLP's? Sofar i've seen a few BLP's (For example

6164:

Thanks. My reactions? Firstly, in my experience, the bar for notability is set ridiculously low. Secondly, why do American-resident people require a different standard to people living in, for example, Australia or Canada or New Zealand, or the European Union?

3273:

What WilyD said. Also, rather than restoring the original wording, which was "sensitivity to the subject", I have replaced "human dignity" with "privacy". I think privacy is a more agreed-upon term and more accurately reflects the idea that we want to convey. --

354:

What you've got there is one or more POV pushers trying to turn it into a scandal article of a type only found in a particularly nasty kind of tabloid. There is probably a real article in there somewhere. The version I just reverted to looks like a good start.

5169:

policemen and their death squads. Casual accusations of this kind - and false positives, where information about several people is accidentally conflated into a single article - can lead to beatings, imprisonment, torture or death. How do we deal with this? --

1993:

The point is I can start a blog, write "Johnny Nobody is a paedophile" and then it's a source? No ... if third party opinions are relevant, they'll be repeated in reliable secondary sources. And yes, Slim's completely off-base about RS. Pay it no nevermind.

6070:. In the case of many of Knowledge's articles, this does not matter too much. But for biographies of living people, this process can introduce unacceptable distortions - looking at someone's life through the lens of the media. Again, I return to my point that 4447:

Actually, I share Michael's concern, though I don't wholly agree with the text of his changes. The option of fixing may be "implicit", but there's no harm to making it explicit. The policy, as worded, seems to actively discourage any action except removal. --

5729:, and the "relevance" and "undue weight" clauses, as well as applying common sense, would really help. But it is discouraging when people seem to not understand one or more of these points. Anyway, do you think any of the above discussion could contribute to 5222:

considerations? Even if something is widely reported in newspapers, there are sometimes appeals by the police and others to avoid repeating the reports, or publishing speculations, because of concerns that this may unduly influence a jury that has to try the

8123:

There is indeed something odd about that, as it implies that the minute someone dies they're under less scrutiny per policy. Not only is this misleading, in some cases it can be every bit as important to verify information on the recently dead: look at the

1723:

The article about Bill Carter shows that he had a significant public profile on his own behalf. His activities with respect to the government of Libya were investigated by a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Billy Carter-Libya Investigation)

1439:

and if somebody notices the deletion they would need to take it to DRV and spend hours/days before there is overwhelming consensus to undelete? Or does this only apply to non-notable subjects? More clarification needed on how this scenario will be avoided.

783:

be used. It is not enough that a person abandons a religion to be categorized as a "former xxxx", it must be explicitly stated in a valid source. As WiliD says, the mention of the religion or former religion needs to be relevant to the person's notability.

4399:

The option of fixing is implicit in Knowledge's status as a wiki. This policy does not say and has never said, nor is it capable of being read as saying, that providing a reliable source for an unsourced statement is forbidden. That would be very silly.

3964:". Dylan certainly talked about Christ and was apparently baptised, but there do not seem to be any occasions when he referred to himself as a Christian, or that he considered himself a convert to Christianity. In fact he condemned religion as such: see 7497:

Tony, if you think the article itself should go, I'm not sure I would disagree. However, if we are to include the article then it would seem reasonable to include the name. In other words, I support including the name assuming the article not deleted. --

2561:

I think the crucial issue in this case is the specific wording of criterion G10 of the speedy deletion criteria. Namely, a page is only speedy-able per G10 when there is no NPOV version to revert to. In this case, the article could have been reverted to

8404:

biography on Knowledge could claim that they were British Lords, or heirs to the French crown, or recipients of the Nobel Prize, in spite of a lack of evidence to confirm any such wild claim, made by the subect himself or herself, or by a second party.

5642:

indicator of suitability. That a subject meets the relevant notability guideline should be enough to justify inclusion in the absolute majority of cases, but exceptions should be made for cases where there are other concerns that cannot be corrected by

5438:– I think operating on the basis of a dichotomy between "complete biography" and "no biography" is not productive. A biographical article for a notable person may be appropriate even when a complete biography is not or does not seem possible. That does 5005:

I can see that we might want to give emphasis to removal over corroboration. And I can see that we might want to promote the principle of "remove first, corroborate (if possible) later". However, I don't think those two principles require us to forgo

5297:

business. If it is left to "anyone can edit", then a bias towards the immediately available sources, such as news reports, appears. News reports are not intended to be the basis on which to write about a person's life. Any reputable biographer will

4134:

of belief found within its thousands of denominations and sub-denominations. Again, we need to keep in mind that accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour makes you his follower, and this in turn makes you a "Christian", a follower of the Christ. The

3125:

I think the portion about "human dignity" should be removed. We shouldn't dictate other peoples' dignity. How about just being as direct as possible: "Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies." --

7432:

It doesn't rule out the inclusion of the names of private individuals, but it does correctly allow for the exclusion of names that are not necessary. The Baby 81 case is one where obviously having the name in the article is completely unnecessary.

7136:

That's my interpretation of where we're going with things. I've brought it here because I can't really decide myself if it's the right thing to do or not. I can see both sides of the argument at the moment, so it'll be interesting to discuss it.

5553:- can someone clarify (a) how US and Florida privacy laws work and (b) ethically what standards people think should apply? The "some detail of this person's life was published in a reliable source so the person is now public" mindset is not working. 5519:– You said: "I do not think such a section is necessary and feel that consideration for jury influence is covered by our current consideration for the privacy of the subject." - can you point where the need to avoid covering (or be sensitive about) 5247:

policy that people who are thrust into the limelight due to birth, or some one-off incident, should not be over-exposed on Knowledge because we have the manpower to record minutiae from newspapers and incorporate it into what is supposed to be an

7292:

those events using psuedonyms or undefined pronouns, etc. I also assume that we are talking about situations that are unambiguously verifiable, right? So using vague allusions would likely as not encourage curiousity into the identity anyway.

6154:

I think so, yes. But notability comes first. It is OK to have an incomplete article about a notable person, but not OK to flesh it out with non-notable stuff. That probably didn't come across as well as it should have done. I'll try again later.

6211:

Unless it's already public knowledge, this policy already forbids discussing it. An example might be better, but generally "private" information should never be included in articles, as is (already) discussed in this policy. In some cases, it

5565:- again, this was meant to focus solely on biographies of living people. The aggregation of information in other types of articles is a good way to accumulate information (if not necessarily a good way to write an article), but it is peculiarly 4041:

He apparently used the term "born-again experience" and did not deny using that expression. The expression he denied was "born-again Christian" and there is no evidence that he did use it. The difference between the two is the "Christian" bit.

3318:

obvious vandalism or trolling, I do not think that admins should block (although protection is fine). I just don't want the phrase "even if they have been editing the article themselves" to apply to cases of blocking users over content disputes.

3137:

If adjectives have to be used, I think the combination of "fair and impartial" might make the point clearly. The only problem with referring to "our content policies" is the lack of specificity. But that might be an advantage in some cases too.

7077:

biography "page" is different from saying only that only John can self-publish material about John. In particular, if Ted is discussed in John's biography, then it seems natural that self-published material by Ted can be used to describe Ted.

6682:

possible to find it out elsewhere, how the heck would it ever get into the wikipedia article? In my experience, people who don't want their birthdates known are more sensitive about the year they were born than they are about the actual date.

6974:

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more

8195:. The need to treat subjects fairly and reasonably shouldn't end when their heart stops, or when their estate dissolves, or on their 10,000th birthday. Ideally, our fairness and reliability should be eternal. But now I'm just dreaming. 6501:

in this regard -- if a notable transgender person's former identity has been widely identified in reliable mainstream sources, then in the vast majority of cases it would be acceptable to include that piece of background info in Knowledge

3815:

It needs to be thought through and clarified, but not just struck, until something better is agreed to replace it. I disagree about lists: they present themselves as definitive, so there is no room for uncertainty over inclusion in them.

6492:

already covers it. Like WilyD said, it's not helpful or practical to spell out every unsourced or poorly sourced statement you can't make about a living person. But, I sort of disagree a little bit with Sonjaa on the interpretations of

5258:

cross that line? In these two cases , the coverage is insufficient to justify an article. Princess Diana eventually got to the point where people were writing biographies about her. Kate Middleton is probably best covered as a section at

1046:

on admins to be clueful. We depend on arbitrators to step to one side and look at the situation very carefully, with an eye to the good of the encyclopedia. Meanwhile I suggest that undeleting in the absence of consensus is probably a

562:- making them longer only makes them less readable. It's not a terrible idea, but it's not a worthwhile one either - this policy is already too long, and needs to be shorter and clearer (without any substantial content change). Cheers, 8288:

This article makes claims about other things as well. "In 1979 he had founded and directed Longevity Research Hospital," this is a claim about two things, Hucko, and the hospital. It's easy to find a source that the hospital existed,

4233:

I still don't see an explanation per se. Lists are comparable to articles in that they are articles, but inclusion is still a statement in Knowledge's voice. You haven't actually responded to the concerns with that aspect raised above.

4065:

Bottom line is that there is an amount of uncertainty here. If we go by secondary sources, then the case for inclusion is clear. If we require self-identification, then an area of doubt vetoes inclusion. Per BLP the default is to omit.

1529:

The problem can be compounded if the subject tries to edit their own article to remove problematic content. Since they are likely not regular Wikipedians, they will be unaware of our policies, and will often be accused of vandalism or

3753:

I'm a little more concerned with how one might define 'self-identification'. Some individuals (as I have seen) expect a subject to say, explicitly, "I am X", but I think that this is a flawed expectation. An individual can essentially

8156:

I would guess that an active estate could still sue for libel, so you make a good point. But rather than change the name of the policy, perhaps we could add a sentence or two to the policy covering this. Something along the lines of:

7352:

I believe that Mackensen is correct here. Many of the sources we link to have the real name, googling for "baby 81" turns it up in tons of reputable sources. This isn't some tabloid outing thing, the name is already public knowledge.

2475:

My personal opinion is that we should neither expand nor contract the BLP policy for politicians. The fact of someone being a politician should not affect how content policies are applied to articles about them. Content must still be

5806:"Simply saying 'but this has been reported by a reliable source' is not enough. The first consideration should be 'do we need and do we even want to include this material?' Only then should the search for a reliable source start." 4843:

To conclude: It is strange to the point of being ridiculous that a policy doesn't mention fixing content as a way of solving a content problem. If, despite this explanation, you still object to the change, please explain why. --

4989:

I have often removed unsourced material, found a source, then added the material back in later. I have even sourced something without the removal first. Nothing in the policy has ever discouraged me from doing so. The burden on

1902:

when determining whether a source is valid, which Quatloo did not. Additionally, there may be some review required of the policy about when the WP:BLP switches to the (currently imaginary) WP:BDP (Biography of a Dead Person).

1063:

Of course - but having a clue does go both ways. To be perfectly honest, if I undelete any article that's deleted citing BLP without obtaining consensus, anyone taking me to ArbCom over it will end up looking the fool, not I.

6930:

before adding large, pointless chunks of text. The problem with this chunk of text is that it doesn't say anything new - it just makes the (already large, unwieldy) policy page larger and unwieldier. If there's some salient

5210:, and it was mentioned over there that some of the points raised should be recorded and discussed here, so that is what I am doing. I'm also commenting briefly on some other points from the last few talk pages sections above. 3638:

Not at all. I understand what you're saying and agree with it (btw, I added the part about lists). I just don't believe it is the role of ArbCom to make such clarifications. I would rather they just stick to evaluating user's

1859:

in this regard. There seems to be many ways to give too much weight to a person's criminal involvement and I think if we had some specific BLP guidance to turn on criminal matters, we could all get on the same page faster. --

743:

as currently written, specifically preclude mention or categorization as "former (religion X)" or not? As it is written, any reference to the subject's earlier religious beliefs could be challenged according to this phrasing.

6664:

Every person with a biography in Knowledge is especially vulnerable to identity theft. Please allow and encourage only the year of birth, and not the date in articles. The month and day are not necessary for a biography.

2419:"The Boston Globe concluded, 'The view of Thompson as a Nixon mole is strikingly at odds with the former Tennessee senator's longtime image as an independent-minded prosecutor who helped bring down the president he admired'." 6448:

well-known but belong to not very well-known individuals. But if the subject is well-known and the birthdate is well-known, then sorry, it's not private anymore. I think the same thing would apply to transgender status. --

5354:(the eldest son) as a separate article, as he has been politically active (speaking at the age of 12 at the Republican National Convention, and has spoken on Hispanic issues and campaigned during two presidential elections." 5314:, where it is possible to step back and put the life in context, something that is not possible with a living person). But when there is a lack of information, the result is often horribly imbalanced, as in these two cases." 1809:

are all relevant, but none of them are policy. We need specific policy on this, not just vague guidelines and essays. Indeed, I think the reason those pages have appeared is due to the lack of specific policy on this issue.

1846:

and find them elsewhere. I really think we need at least a guideline or page on how BLP articles should handle BLP crime issues, specifically arrest, trial, accusations, convictions, age of convictions, crime victims, etc.

6723:

When an artist is actually known by a name, and that's the name which appears on his or her albums, the article would generally be titled by the artist's professional name, with the real name as a redirect to the article.

8393: 3924:

That is the user page of an editor indefinitely blocked for disruption. No policy discussion of any kind should be taking place on that user page, particularly since that page will be deleted if the user remains blocked.

3679:

Then I may be inclined to agree. However, BLP already requires very reliable sources for any contentious statements (which is how religious or sexuality terms should probably be seen), so the addition here seems a little

7931:

it "detracts from their reputation." The point is that is must be well-sourced, and that applies to all usage in Wikimedia, including talk pages and private user space (as you admit above). That's all I'm getting at. --

8302:

It seems to me that anyone whose activities have *NEVER* been covered by reliable independent sources, that would be an example of someone outside the scope of what a general-interest encyclopedia can reasonably cover.

938:

The deleting administrator doesn't have the last word. If there is consensus to undelete, the article is undeleted. Anybody who undeletes a BLP without consensus will be taken to arbitration by me, that's a promise.

5398:– I do not think such a section is necessary and feel that consideration for jury influence is covered by our current consideration for the privacy of the subject. Speculation has no place in BLPs (per this policy and 8488:, an archive page which previously had no listing in the archive box; in the earlier edit, prior to restoring the blanked page, I added both Archive 9 and Archive 10 so that people can access these archived pages. -- 4293:

The change was not meant to alter the meaning, and it specifically talked about stuff not belonging if the sources aren't appropriate or it's conjecture based on sources. The point, as I think The Cunctator wanted to

1526:

Wales get well-founded complaints about biographical content on living people every day — people justifiably upset at inaccurate or distorted articles. The successful resolution of such complaints is a touchy matter.

1289:

figure out what we want for a code of ethics. That's an important decision, and one every person here has the right to input on. It's not something we should backdoor in by imposing a few people's ethics on everyone.

1944:

RS is a useless guideline, but it at least doesn't contradict this policy, Spherical. The policy on sourcing is V, and it's clear that self-published sources may not be used as third-party sources on living persons.

6712:

instead of the otherway around.) who don't use the person's real name, but who they're most known as, and I would like to know the offical policy before I either let it be, or try to move pages. Thanks for any help

5712:

I think notability is useful to an extent, but can be abused to call for inclusion of unsuitable material. I agree fully with you that a better understanding and application of key policies and guidelines, such as

3727:

As for extending the category requirements for religious belief and sexual preference to lists, I think that was also previously covered. Point 1 (public self-identification) is required in order for content to be

7412:

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. It is often preferable to omit the name, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of

7207:

6677:

to be mentioned in other published sources to be notable enough to be in wikipedia. If your birthdate is published elsewhere, it can make no difference to anything if it is also published in wikipedia. If it is

5758:

If there are legal requirements (in Florida) regarding subjudice concerns, we should of course incorporate them. However, I do not believe that a neutral and verified presentation of facts would conflict with the

4709: 2749:

Yeah, this is probably stupid. But, considering that several companies which use a living animal in advertising and such. Considering the threats of lawsuits were we to add content to articles about these animals

6331:

A more interesting thing to make explicit in the policy, I think, is for people who are well-known to have changed genders, which name should the article title be, and what gender pronoun should be used. Taking

6252:

If it's being "outted", it's almost certainly forbidden. In some other cases, where medical conditions and past names are already in the public consciousness and are relevant to the person's notability, then it

2056:

The Saberhagen Incident was problematic, but I can see at least one problem with permitting the use of blogs written by authoritative figures, which is in determining who precisely is an authoritative figure. If

5655:- I agree. Five sentences about a drunken driving conviction that meets the "relevance" criterion (for whatever reasons) is more appropriate in a medium-length article than a ten-sentence stub. Context matters. 1249:

is right that "a hasty undelete could potentially harm the subject" but it could also harm wikipedia and the undeleter if a lawsuit is filed over the undelete. The key clue needed in the case of an undelete is

335:

Period. Do you think other encyclopedias like Britannica, Encarta, etc allow their writers/editors to utilize information found in tabloids? Your weak policy is hurting Knowledge and as long as articles like

7014:

Administrators should obtain consensus before undeleting material that has been deleted citing this policy, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the

6791:

This policy does not specifically deal with scandals of living persons. (Things like Bill Clinton's sex scandals) So, I'm asking, are there any guidelines on the inclusion of a living person's scandals on his

5442:

mean that every available detail about that person should be stuffed in the article to try to make it more complete. As a sidenote, I think that actively pursuing the deletion of incomplete biographical stubs

853:

8453: 8098:

article is not supported by reliable sources, it may be removed even without BLP. This proposal (to expand the scope of BLP) has been suggested many times (see the talk page archives) and routinely rejected.

7634:

The article severely diminished without reference to the name, including redirects, because that is simply going to be one of the main search terms, should people want to get more information from wikipedia.

842:

Administrators should seek consensus before undeleting material that has been deleted citing this policy, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the

6774:

the policies that says the amount of information published about someone should be proportionate to their importance, and the assessment of articles as stubs doesn't seem to take this factor into account.

5467:

be lumped together with 'stalkerish' or tabloid articles that are focused solely on one news story or blunder. There is a difference between incomplete but notable coverage and incomplete and insignificant

2930:

fairness - probably a more subjective term than "goodness"; let's avoid the inevitable discussions about what in life is or isn't fair; besides, trying to impose or create fairness is not the same as being

2170:

Geni, why are you switching the policy tag to policy2? Why is it better to not say editors should only edit the page in ways that reflect consensus? For that matter, why does the policy2 template exist?

8384:

As worded this section calls for those on the reciveing end of the soviet show trial to be placed in cat criminals. This be the case I see little point in lengthening the page further with flawed examples.

1601:

The introductory paragraph of this section is atrociously didactic. I'm certain words could be found to inform contributors of the policy and its rationale without lecturing them in such a pontifical way.

5983:

find objectionable. Many of our readers will come away thinking "that wasn't an encyclopedia article, that was a collection of news stories masquerading as a biographical article." At least that is often

8025: 7263: 6075: 5952: 7917:"Nope"? You just admitted that "We already established that a while ago," (referring to my statement that "BLP applies to all publicly accessible space at Wikimedia, which obviously includes Knowledge." 7022:

Disputes may be taken to deletion review, but any protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative.

6668:

I qualify to have a biography in Knowledge (written by someone else, of course), but I refuse. I understand that there would be pressure to discover my birthdate an insert it into the biography. --TK

778:

I would argue for exercising caution in this respect. If a person describes himself as Zoroastrian or a former Zoroastrian, or published sources refer to this person as such, then these categorizations

8011: 2443:

It doesn't matter whether I like an opinion. What matters is whether Knowledge is an encyclopedia or is merely an echo board for every bit of politically-based allegation that makes it into the press.

6481:

I think we're getting a couple of discussions twisted. Let me clarify my position: I thought how to refer to transgender people needed to be spelled out, not realizing it already is spelled out in

5235:"In other words, if these people pass the notability requirements, don't think "oh, that's OK then", but stop and think "is this really the sort of material that Knowledge is proud to be producing"." 4881:

You wrote: "that a source can be added is well known". It may be well known to you and me, but will new users be aware of that? Of course not! They'll interpret the policy as it is written: that the

4326:

Restoring the material is subject to the same policies as adding it in the first place. The focus of the section is on dealing with material that's already there but not in compliance with policy. --

1738:

This policy already does address coatracks, and several coatracks have been successfully wiped out under this policy. If you've been having problems dealing with coatracks, I can help and advise. --

348: 5447:

encourages this kind of artificial bloating. That said, if an appropriate merge target exists (as in the case of children of notable people), then a properly performed merge may be the best outcome.

2955:

decency - much too subjective. Is it decent to be eat a dog? Is it decent to be homosexual? Let's not go down that road and avoid these pointless debates that'll not be resolved in our lifetimes ...

305: 8505:

BTW, any more opinions on WillyD's proposed language to amend the page in reference to external links? We've got three people on board so far I think. It gets a little buried but the proposal is

4298:, is that the problem is fix-or-remove, not just remove. In what way is the new version inadequate? I disagree with the characterization of the change and would like to know where it comes from. -- 2342:. A one sentence comment that Thompson's actions conflict with his public current image. A single source, or several sources shouldn't matter, but if it does it mentioned in the following sources: 324: 7751:

Also, while in general I think your example would be okay, if XYZ was "so-and-so killed his mistress," it is probably better to not even put it on the Talk page until there is a reliable source...

7069:, the policy says that the only self-published material that can be referenced in John's article is material that John himself published. This sometimes leads to some rather strange limitations. 5947:

I would agree with all those. I think you have misunderstood my position. I wouldn't argue for things to be excluded if not all the others can be included. My position is that I disagree with the

1578:, and biographical material anywhere on Knowledge, with the following practice in mind: The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies; 8273: 6606: 5320:"if you have an article about a living person, based entirely on news stories and where there is no true biographical coverage (by which I mean an attempt to put the events of a person's life in 2117:

and the article isn't about a person at all. If we use his logic, we can extend this to any article that mentions a living person. I think that's a pretty far leap... what do you guys think? /

1163:

I'm sure that arbcom wouldn't do something "immensely dumb", but if someone did compromise the encyclopedia I don't think arbcom would think it dumb to sanction them (qv, their recent actions) --

2188:

Well first rather a lot of this policy appears to come from arbcom and random jimbo statements rather than consensus and second we have no idea how widely this page is accepted by the community.

4721: 8459:

By stating as much, we're strongly implying that it's not true. Someone else (a reliable source) needs to have written about the person not appearing on the list, or it's original research. --

4372:

The concern, I think, is that the option of fixing is not even being considered. I agree that removing is better than waiting around for a fix, which is why I added the comment that tags like

4153:

1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2830:

running "compassion" and "fairness" through a thesaurus (.com!), I like the synonyms for fairness (decorum, decency, impartiality, courtesy) than I do compassion (empathy, benevolence, mercy)

1305:

for is the usurpation of the community's role in deciding its course". Good. If the deleting admin doesn't support undeletion and you don't think he's given an adequate reason for deletion,

6137:

Is the suggestion here really that American-resident living people should have one standard of completeness and every other living person the much lower standard as dead historical people? --

5579: 5537:

enough. The first consideration should be "do we need and do we even want to include this material?" Only then should the search for a reliable source start. This is similar to my next point.

4971:

Hah ... it seems our proposals are quite similar. To be completely honest, however, I slight prefer the version below because it's shorter, more direct, and covers a broader range of cases.

1886:

guidelines (Quoted: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand"). Specifically, this was brought to light by

281:- thought that explication might be relevant here, and worth some discussion if anyone wants to work out in which sense Knowledge should apply this principle... (yes, the answer is "both"!) 2674: 2662: 5669:

that appears on all pages, the difficulty of determining to which articles to apply a disclaimer, and the potential legal liability that comes with inconsistent application of disclaimers.

2901:

Justly is an adverb, not a noun. "Justness" is probably the closest without a more substantial reword. I personally might like "fairness and judiciousness", or "fairness and decorum" ..

6086:

of current news stories in them, but if you come back later when the fuss has died down, we might have remembered to remove them if we haven't forgotten about it like everyone else has".

2772: 2469: 2385: 2302: 2293: 1184:

Maybe we should add something like, "if there is no consensus to delete.." which would allow for very obvious deletions, but also point out where the community should become involved. --

6987:

Where a person is mentioned by name in a Knowledge article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

6880:'s undue weight clause). The local alderman who's wife gets caught stealing pants from Zellers - this is less likely to be relevant (but as always, look at it on a case by case basis). 8341: 3732:. The only issue may be with point 2 (relevance), in that lists (unlike categories) can provide supplementary context that may justify inclusion. I will modify the sentence shortly. -- 3341:

been editing the article to remove the material. Administrators who abuse this provision can be taken to arbitration and may lose their sysop bits, and that's sufficient deterrent. --

1087: 6371:

or unless they only transitioned after have already been famous and knownbefore, no mention of their transgender status or their former name should be made, to protect their privacy.--

5272:

needed) should be incorporated elsewhere. We shouldn't be afraid to say to people "You want to find out about some arrest that happened to this child of a politician? The tabloids are

2785: 2658:

MP, former British Home Secretary. PS sorry about the name, it is an internal parliamentary nickname with the profanity changed to something more suitable for use as an online handle.

5762:

As for the other point, I think the discussion can inform modifications to the BLP policy, especially with regard to the lack of emphasis on improvement as an alternative to removal (

8322: 4359:

thing to do is remove. "Fix or remove" is fine too, but we don't need to reword our policies to say it's okay to source a poorly sourced statement if you happen to have a source. --

2810: 2654:

As a rather well known LP myself, I have a question: since I know my own career and it appears that published sources don't, can I alter what is written without having to source it?

1493:

It's good to make it clear that quibbles about whether the BLP actually applies should not be used as an excuse to subvert this policy. Raising hypotheticals such as the deletion of

6266: 3235:

The problem, of course, is that many other editors are sure they know what it means, and disagree strongly with you - clearer policies subject to less misinterpretation are better.

1855:. A recent issue I came across is the Misuse of Infobox criminal to give undue weight to a person's crime and thus raise potential BLP and NPOV issues. I posted a thread on this at 1273:

then use "Well we've made 150 deletions under this and not a single one's been overturned. Of course it has consensus." And no one will think to say "Well wait a minute, we had the

554:

in a policy where it should be. Policies exist in a constellation, not as individual works - there's no need to regurgitate every policy in every other policy. Policies should be

7771:

violation if you were framing it in the manner you've given as an example above. If you are stating "The Sun had an article that Celebrity X is bulimic, has anyone seen this in a

6777:

In any case, I'm in a quandary. I don't want the article to remain tagged as a stub, and I don't think it's a good idea for me as the subject to take responsibility for fixing it.

5326:"this article has been patched together from lots of news stories because no true biography has been written yet - so this article might not be a very balanced view of this person" 3142: 1927:

The "Reliable source" guidelines aren't perfect and should never be used as a reason to alter this policy. Rather, revise the guideline to conform with all existing policies. And

5228:"Knowledge, by using coverage as its "notable sources" is failing to provide encyclopedic coverage and is looking at living people through the distorting lens of media coverage." 5075:

Whoops ... I didn't quite see that and replaced it with the "Content may be re-inserted" version. I think the two versions are quite similar and have only a slight preference for

3108:, or anything else inappropriate to an encyclopedia. We uphold the human dignity of our subjects, even if we don't like them as people. This seems to be very much the spirit of 1907: 1793: 1668: 965:

practical effect of your version would be that lack of consensus defaults to "delete" if someone asserts a BLP issue. Therefore, your version is a change, not an interpretation.

819: 8050:"living persons" This should be changed, it suject that anything made up about the non-living is fine, There has been a problem occurring time and time again on the biography of 7476:

Obviously I don't think that we should let the press set our standards for inclusion, that would be very silly, and this is an excellent example of why we shouldn't let them. --

5766:) and the importance of not placing undue weight on any given aspect of the subject's life, especially when the subject is only marginally notable or notable for a single event ( 4960:

If an editor chooses to attempt to corroborate poorly sourced or unsourced material, the material should still be removed from the article pending a search for reliable sources.

1476: 7296: 6796: 4036: 1935: 1831: 1814: 1444: 1219: 7583: 7557: 7480: 7449: 6889: 6756: 4124: 4079: 4069: 4059: 4046: 3972: 3089: 2758: 1328: 1313: 6265:

seems to include a lot of people, and in at least some cases their transsexuality seems to be notable - for example, it's probably noteworthy for most or all of the people in

5065:

Tom harrison made my statement more concise, and I moved it to the position in the paragraph of your wording, works better there I think. Can we consider this a resolution? -

4953: 4938: 4850: 4607: 4564: 4526: 4483: 4454: 4426: 4404: 4386: 4363: 4285: 4179: 3521: 3470: 3432: 3412: 3345: 3331: 3311: 3210: 3185: 3161: 3132: 3116: 2649: 2619: 2600: 2580: 2121: 1054: 867: 8485: 7997: 7719: 7310: 7066: 6717: 4687:

to search myself? will I look a fool? etc) which ought not to be there. There is already a gulf beteen the word for verifiability and the reality: this will make it worse. --

2644: 1488: 579:

decision into the current policy, instead of relying on the shaky mechanism of directly quoting the ArbCom ruling as justification for whatever action we may be undertaking.

162: 8110:

I agree with Black Falcon. BLP draws from all the other guidelines and policies, and adds a sense of urgency, and some penalties. But the underlying policies still apply. -

7861:

We already established that a while ago, that doesn't detract from the fact that it is cutting off one's own leg. It certainly doesn't qualify as good editorial practice. --

7629: 7595: 7528: 7359: 7324: 7084: 6185: 6176: 6159: 5784: 5737: 5680: 5595: 5503: 5151: 4703: 4270: 2275: 2039: 1976: 1953: 1640: 1501: 1412: 1375: 1296: 1207: 1006: 977: 960:

Your adamant stance avoids the question. Suppose there's no consensus either way, before the article is deleted or afterward. Your position still seems to me to mean that

943: 811: 793: 771: 723: 710: 684: 630: 368: 316: 8254:

Knowledge article seems to be entirely sourced from webpages "he" has created himself. Given this, we have no way of knowing he eixsts outside of a few personal webpages.

8114: 7970: 7803: 7754:

If it becomes a problem, then we should think about changing the wording. Until then, though, comments like the example you gave are probably protected sufficiently under

7738:

under present policy, strictly enforced, I could not even state "read XYZ in The Sun, but don't think it's a particularly reputable source. Can anyone corroborate this?" --

7732: 7502: 7437: 7244: 6730: 6567: 6362: 5112: 5099: 5089: 5069: 5053: 4999: 4977: 4966: 3951: 3653: 3633: 3623: 2723: 2426:

He or she wrote "This article should have more critique similar to Hillery_clinton#Controversies and Barack Obama to be broad in its coverage per Good article criteria #3.

2364: 1731: 1188: 1025:

I have seen many complaints saying "Admin deletion of articles based on claims of BLP" is somehow unwiki (or otherwise problematic). In my opinion the key issue is that we

747: 8513: 8039: 7817: 7779: 7742: 7144: 7131: 6582: 6090: 6037: 5992: 5963: 5942: 5866: 4000:"Bob did go through our school of discipleship. He spent four months every day in a class room and it was out of that came the albums of 'Saved' and 'Slow Train Coming.'" 3748: 2910: 2896: 2736: 2711: 2506: 2322: 1920: 1281:

group opposing them every time around. How's that consensus? Doesn't that indicate a lot of people actually don't agree?" So, I issued my challenge above. Let's bring the

1229: 671: 359: 295: 8373: 8223: 8105: 7762: 7693: 7643: 7191: 7153: 6935:

in this you feel is undermephasized, explain what it is - but this policy needs to present a coherent vision, not be simply a haphazard collection of redundant thoughts.

6596: 6324:. If a non-tabloid well-recognized news source has already "outted" the person, then Knowledge is not doing the outting and ought to report (don't even need to get into 5125: 4915: 4904: 4891: 4861: 4754: 4736: 3871: 3793: 3783: 3738: 3665: 3375: 3363: 1894:. Quatloo generally disagreed with the consensus of other editors that found nothing wrong with the original edit, basing his entire argument on this line of WP policy. 1760: 1742: 1034: 262: 8247: 8214: 8169: 7956: 7389: 7280: 6876:

The answer is - it depends. That Clinton got blown by some young lady was a major characteristic of his presidency - it definitely deserves mention (though be aware of

5364: 5207: 5042: 4727:

Was the National Enquirer the only source reporting on these unidentified "family sources"? If that is the case, I would argue for the exercise of caution in this case.

4680: 4667: 4520:

First, I believe "derogatory" should be changed to "contentious". Second, I think "sourceable" should be changed to "sourced". I hope that clarifies my comment. Cheers,

3052:(resetting indent) I'd rather avoid any use of the word "fair" given how it can be interpreted. How about rewriting the whole sentence or simply deleting the last part. 754:

Zoroastrian - but if his former religion is somehow important (maybe it's widely thought to influence his writings?) then it'd be reasonable to discuss. Putting him in

150: 7946: 7908: 7865: 7856: 7039: 6781: 5195: 5139: 4639: 4344: 4330: 4321: 4021: 4010: 3280: 3244: 3036: 3006: 2462:

or do we stretch it for political candidates? Or is the answer that we start with it and evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether to expand BLP for political subjects?

2447: 2434: 2149: 2003: 1167: 1121: 1094: 1073: 889: 599: 583: 571: 541: 522: 8151: 7270: 7257: 6375: 6205: 6071: 6062:

On the other points, I agree totally that Knowledge should not be doing the "interpretive synthesis" - instead, it should be reporting the "interpretive synthesis" of

6024:"...this to me seems to open the doors to including on Knowledge a mention of every single tabloid story about every politician and celebrity." Not if editors follow 4783: 4773: 3833: 3820: 2769: 2641: 1828: 1790: 1780: 1718: 1594: 1258: 719:). A warning has been given to certain editors that they should observe the letter and the spirit of this policy. Naturally the principles equally apply to us all. -- 243: 224: 8463: 8235: 7625:

think we've both agreed in the past the article, if there is one here, isn't about the child at all but about the news values and errors in reporting in this case. --

7588:

Don't misrepresent my words - I never said that. I said that some of your assertions are not supported, including the fact that Baby 81 is a straight-forward case.

6649: 4763: 3810: 3771: 3684: 3674: 2235:

Ha, that sentence is a good example of the importance of the comma. I meant to write: "... in my experience of dealing with editors, who want to see it applied." :-)

1870: 925: 442: 424: 186: 177: 7303: 6618: 6314: 4698: 4302: 4238: 2243: 2218: 2209: 1694: 1684: 491: 479: 312:

during his lifetime. Obviously we would not want to conceal the extremely damaging, but easily verifiable and highly significant information about his misdeeds. --

285: 205: 137: 6518: 6452: 6442: 6415: 6345: 6476: 6402: 6239: 6225: 5830:, then no nontrivial, verifiable information about that subject should be perforce excluded only because one or another editor finds the information disagreeable. 5218:

Crime articles - should there not be a section explaining how in cases of articles about crimes where suspects are awaiting trial, we should be careful because of

4260: 4224: 4121: 4076: 4056: 4033: 3948: 3929: 3139: 2807: 2755: 2192: 808: 744: 504: 410: 393: 381:

nothing he says is carved in stone, you don't need to quote him all the time, and you don't need to link to his specific words to make a point. that's pathetic. --

307:, it's clear that Charles meant the colloquial sense. In short, he doesn't think we should tread on eggshells over some dead miscreant. To take an example, when 8072: 5614:– There is no provision regarding sub judice matters specifically (as far as I know), but I believe any consideration that is deserved is already provided by the 4653: 3466:

I'm sorry I have to spell it out hereL this policy overrides everything. We don't put unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material anywhere on Knowledge. --

2754:'s mess of kittens", depicting him as a unusually libidinous and irresponsible animal, for example), would it make sense to extend BLP to living animals as well? 448:

This isn't new - generally the onus is on people who want to add content to show that it's appropriate and compliant with any policies in the event of a dispute.

6944: 3206:

I've used it too. So has Jimbo Wales. I'm sure I know what it means. People who don't, have the option of avoiding editing articles involving living people. --

2994: 2555: 2347: 466: 457: 97: 89: 84: 8357: 7784:

A kind of related issue here, which I have seen frequently, is claim-creep, where a mere allegation becomes fact. Example: a newspaper reports says that Foo is

6825:: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it important to the article, and has it been published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. 6407:

Actually, I was looking in BLP and didn't see it, and for whatever reason I didn't think to look at MoS... Probably redundant to cover it both places, I guess.

5778:). In my opinion, emphasising these points will be more a matter of clarification and provision of additional guidance than of controversial changes to policy. 6639: 3643:

in light of consensus-determined rules instead of themselves endorsing or imposing policies and guidelines. In effect, I believe members of ArbCom should have

3098:

I've gone for "Biographical material must therefore be written with sensitivity to the subject's human dignity and a strict adherence to our content policies."

2892:

Is "justly" a word? I would favor some adjective that denotes "fairness" rather than compassion. Compassion in my opinion is way to gobbly gucky. Anyways :) --

1646: 72: 67: 59: 6148: 5289:(and impossible to complete) articles on a living person from scraps of factual information in various news sources, rather than to comprehensively cover the 4032:

has a generally fairly definite popular meaning, and it isn't entirely clear whether the group he was involved in is one which ever describes itself as such.

3958:

By being immersed in water, Bob became, in common parlance, a born-again Christian, though he would later shrink from the term, claiming he had never used it.

7994: 6786: 2135: 1852: 1441: 537:

It doesn't need to be added to the policy. It's implicit. Although obviously there are many editors who don't believe this, that's not really a problem. --

8159:

The recently deceased, those with active estates, and persons with an unknown living status, are to be treated as living persons in relation to this policy.

6552: 4673: 3858:" is still by and large an epithet. Self-identification for sexuality should be a given, self-identification for religion hinders our ability to categorize. 3557: 1656:

since the only things that are known about their lives are negative incidents that are supposedly embarrassing to whoever they are related to (for example,

291:

Um, though to clarify, I didn't mean that defaming a dead person is OK, just that there is (usually, unless there are living relatives) less repercussions.

5638:– I suppose we disagree somewhat on this point, though it may just be a matter of wording. I think notability (proven via coverage in reliable sources) is 4135: 3903: 3056:

Biographical material must therefore be written impartially, with sensitivity to the privacy of the subject and a strict adherence to our content policies.

2791: 1615: 1603: 8364: 7229: 5894:

Education highlights (significant institutions attended and degrees attained, or some explanation if education interrupted or no higher education pursued)

5226:

There should be a strong warning for editors to judge the suitability of using news reports (newspapers, news websites, TV news) as sources. I feel that:

4279:

Huh! I missed that too. It shouldn't matter whether derogatory material is sourceable or not; if it's unsourced, it can be removed without discussion. --

4193: 1856: 336: 7953: 2493: 859:

That is, the word "seek" has been changed to "obtain". Obviously if an admin should seek consensus prior to undeleting, doing so if he doesn't actually

389: 8363:

What you've described is one of my pet peeves. "After graduating, Alex went on to ..." ... argh! Since this is mostly a style issue, already covered by

7055: 5180: 3607: 8492: 8478: 7905: 7862: 7814: 7739: 7706: 7671: 7346: 6687: 5371: 3597: 3577: 3507:. A single admin can misinterpret, overinterpret, and/or underinterpret the policy, especially when it comes to disputes they're involved in. There is 2794:'s mess of puppies" would be a better example. But some of the animals used for publicity for various zoos and some of the pets of famous people (like 7883:"The evil that men do lives after them. Be wary of putting it into Knowledge before then." We avoid OR problems too when following this principle. -- 6920: 5263:. The section exists, but she has her own article as well. The insatiable appetite people have for information can be a double-edged sword sometimes." 3854:

in this matter. If it is verifiable, it should stay (At least in terms of religion). However Sexuality may be a different matter, as calling someone "

273:

Over at a certain arbitration case, I noticed Charles Matthews (one of the arbitrators) used an interesting Latin phrase in one of his comments. From

5834: 3591:

Similar care should be applied when including people in lists. The same criteria apply as in categories for religious beliefs and sexual preference.

2263: 2086: 716: 4204:

Similar care should be applied when including people in lists. The same criteria apply as in categories for religious beliefs and sexual preference.

3503:

I'm not talking about the policy. I agree with the policy and support implementation of the policy, via blocks if necessary. My concern lies in the

3077: 2175: 1618: 7989:

a troublemaker whose voice doesn't carry much weight when he is cited on his area of expertise, that's tolerable because it happens on the page of

7709: 6693: 5015:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in

2659: 2455: 2431: 2373: 2361: 8497: 2981:

shouldn't leave the reader with the impression that the guy has little or no redeeming value as a human being - a fair, neutral, balanced article

2777:

It's hard to see how one could libel a cat. There is the issue of product/trademark disparagement (remember Oprah and beef producers; if not, see

8510: 8032:

importantly by typing that name into our internal search engine it will appear as the top entry in the search and just lead to a further click.

4213: 1876: 3323:

Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection, even if they have been editing the article themselves, and blocks.

1584: 8388: 8258:

The big problem is, we have no real proof that Mark Hucko exists, outside of the assertion of a person who's been calling himself Mark Hucko.

7728:

just like articles and I would add that talkpages are for discussing articles, not for "voicings of personal opinions". They are not forums.--

7181: 7117: 7105: 5591:

I hope that made some points clearer. It might be easier to spin some of these points off into separate sections if more discussion is needed.

5408:– I do not think such a warning is necessary. In and of themselves, news reports are acceptable sources. It is how they are used that matters. 863:

consensus is also wrong. The important point is not what forms the administrator goes through, but whether consensus exists for his action. --

7897: 6354:

The specific issue is probably an obscure MoS issue (though a very important one.) "Knowledge is not a tabloid" is, I'm fairly sure, still in

2806:, who might not specifically qualify under BLP as a group, not a person. I hope the situation never arises, but weirder things have happened. 1050:, and where this policy is involved it could have serious consequences so it's good to be circumspect about acting to undo such a deletion. -- 6764: 4795: 3462:

block the editor and protect his talk page. This is true even if the editor in question obviously isn't a troll or a vandal. This is true,

3298: 2839: 8219:

I disagree. One very important person can no longer be harmed at the instant the subject dies; the subject. That makes a huge difference. --

5302:

rely totally on news stories, and indeed will often avoid them and use the primary material he is being paid to find. News stories may be a

4479:

As I asked above (and haven't received much of an answer yet), I would love to hear in what way the text of my changes could be improved. --

2536:

Now, the writer of the article stubbed it later on yesterday but these allegations remain in the history. Also, an admin detagged it saying

680:

further than verifiability in its force, although it would be correct to say that it is basically a restatement of our existing policies. --

8269:

us to write an article on a living person based entirely on websites asserted to be "his"? Leave aside any arguments regarding notability.

7174:

As this stands I don't see anything about "negative or undue weight", so it suggests that we should remove them all. Rightly or wrongly.

4840:

clarification, not a change. Improvement has always been an alternative to removal, but it is not currently mentioned for whatever reason.

4109: 3914: 2065:

carries bombs in his turban, I would have to fight (and lose) a battle on that talkpage against those convinced that Pipes is an authority.

47: 17: 7551:

going to have it, we need to do it right, and that means, as always, reflecting reliable and reputable sources, not second-guessing them.

7080:

Do others agree with that? That BLP should apply principally to the kind of information being included and not to the specific context?

5076: 5010:

mention of corroboration (even if it occurs after removal). So, in that spirit, I offer this revised wording (the new sentence is bolded):

1690:

speeding, marijuana possession, love trists, etc. Incidents that are only notable because they embarrass someone famous (by association).

6262: 2765: 1767:

Just remember that in many cases it'd preferable to move and rewrite, rather than simply delete, such as people known for single events.

432: 196:

actually a good thing to do as violet suggests and take existing ideas and build upon them. That's how policy is often created anyway. --

7317:

If the name appears in numerous sources and that person is directly linked to the article then it would be normal to include the name.

5608:

I was more than happy to respond. Doing so also gave me an opportunity to clarify and develop my own views. In response to your points:

5402:) and excessively (defined differently in different cases) detailed coverage of crimes falls under the "undue weight" provision of NPOV. 5392:

first resort except for CSD G10 attack pages. So, yes, I think we should consider (though not always pursue)improvement before deletion.

6854:

unless cited by a reliable secondary source. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it

6428:, we shouldn't say it (and this policy already says "if information in an article is private, remove it right the fuck now!!!"). This 6195: 5547:(and often hardest) question should be "is this suitable?" Only then should questions of notability and reliable sources be considered. 5478:

articles (biographical and otherwise) are patched together from various news and other sources. There is no need for such a disclaimer.

4645:

I completely disagree with this new wording. It contradicts the principle (and the direction of Jimbo, and several other polidies, see

215:

This does not mean, however, that it makes any sense whatsoever to go around deleting all articles on people known only for one event,

105: 344:

her projects. Why can’t Knowledge, which proclaims to be an encyclopedia, have the same standards for our educated, adult editors? --

123:

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.

8128:

situation, WP's poor handling of which led to a police investigation in which computers were seized. I think BLP could be re-termed

7808:"it was a clear BLP" And what's that? Sorry, but I see this really as extreme. And frankly, I am not concerned whether the policy is 7060: 7002:

In response to, "there is nothing in the current policy prohibiting editors from participating in or prolonging such victimization":

5254:

crossed that line at some point (though she was already notable due to being a member of the British aristocracy). At what point did

2744: 697:

it to go further still; but I have never seen consensus for this; nor indeed have I ever seen a clear statement of what this crusade

8327:

I agree with the two comments above. We can't "leave aside ... arguments regarding notability". If a subject cannot be proven to be

5095:

Crum makes a good point, sourcing is only one issue. There are other considerations, like undue weight and relevance to consider. -

7424:

In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

7215:

In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

6909: 4804: 3711: 3547: 1890:'s reversion of a correct edit based on a blog of a reliable and trustworthy source (by every definition or than Quatloo's) on the 1408:

Your suggestion comflicts with deletion policy, which allows for undeletion after review only if there is consensus to undelete. --

588:

These things interact with one another in a way that is difficult to describe. I'll try to present a simple but workable summary:

7981:

people that happen not to be the subject of the article discussed, but -in part- the subject of other articles on wikipedia. When

5586:

biography of this person". That should give pause for thought, for obvious reasons. Knowledge should follow the trend, not set it.

376: 8474:

The bot seems to have blanked the whole current talk page; I restored it in an earlier edit; see editing history of talk page. --

8408:

Clearly, this is not helpful. I believe that noting that the individual at question is not listed on an official document is not

6954:

In response to, "there is nothing in the current policy which says that articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage".

6602: 1823:

to be upgraded to an official guideline, although it probably needs some tweaking first. Feel free to make changes or discuss at

1568:

The rationale section has recently been cut down. Personally, I think it should stay more expanded. It gives a better summary of

6635:. But I am also named Dan Jacobson, but he is a somebody, and I am a nobody. What should I do about the situation, if anything? 5875:, notes of import) proper to any good, balanced biography—and, where known and sourceable, improper to omit from any biography: 1142:

WilyD, would you be careful when using prejudicial words such as "pimping"? They make your comments look like personal attacks.

5814:

guideline for consensus (Wikipedians may have legitimate disagreements over what material should be "wanted"); (2) it discards

3066:

Biographical material must therefore be written with sensitivity to the subject and a strict adherence to our content policies.

2971:

thoughtfullness - this is either the same as "compassionate" and thus POV or is a more ambiguous version of "conscientiousness"

2099: 2096: 1359:

Tony writes: "If the deleting admin doesn't support undeletion and you don't think he's given an adequate reason for deletion,

8347: 7792:

a drug-runner. Some people, even incredibly admins, don't understand the difference between an allegation and a conviction. --

7547:

If you want to submit the article for AfD, do that. I'm not even sure I'd argue to keep it, I'd have to think hard. But if we

3549:, which changes the meaning and makes the opening inconsistent with the detailed formulation below. I've re-inserted this. 2961:

justness - same as fairness. Knowledge is not an appropriate vehicle for promoting social (or any other kind of) justice (see

2298:

A related point: BLP frequently mentions "sources" (plural). If an item is single-sourced is that reason enough to remove it?

2073:

who is otherwise mentioned twice in English-language reliable sources, I would be a little pissed that I couldn't include it.

8045: 7149:

I thought it would only be an issue if a situation was negative or where undue weight of a single event becomes a factor. --

7047:

Arbcom doesn't set policy just by the way, so if people object to the insertion, that it was passed by arbcom is irrelevant.

2629: 737: 268: 6181:

I think he meant places where there are not extensive internet records, but people have to look in printed books instead...

2540:. What is the position? Is it an attack page or not? Should future similar instances be ignored? If so, it seems to me that 6104: 5662: 2684:

says, what counts is "verifiability, not truth" - even though you might know something to be so, unless it's recorded by a

5267:

Getting background information on people. This is a good use of Knowledge, but this shouldn't be used as an excuse to put

5250:

There does come a point when the line is crossed, and the person becomes a celebrity or famous person in their own right.

3838:

I have come across an editor in this manner consistently asserting the "I am X" argument ias a justification to empty the

3000:

impartially. I think the combination of "impartial" and "conscientious" should avoid any confusion with "unconcerned". --

2285:

to include in a book-length biography, but today somebody thinks they are notable in the context of a political campaign.

1432: 617:

Fortunately, we have not adopted these vague, never-stated "implications"; I see no consensus for any implications beyond

4246: 2920:

hail of bullets to be self-sacrificing, noble, and good, but we can't write that either. Articles must be written from a

2106: 2214:

err yes that is to be expected. I mean generaly those who wish to see a policy aplied tend to support it one some level.

2035:

terms 'living persons' and 'deceased persons,' and in the end who has the right to decide this status of such persons.

831: 485: 6626: 397: 6951:

I stand by my initial summary and would like to illustrate my position via the following quotes from the policy page:

6028:. You seem to be agglomerating mass media and tabloid journalism in order to make your point. Well, don't do this. 8506: 4516:

attributability as opposed to present source status. Specifically, I do not agree with the wording of this sentence:

2349: 2155: 1181: 903:

defaults to "keep" -- would be changed so that lack of consensus defaults to "delete" if someone asserts a BLP issue.

898:

I'm still unclear on the relationship between this latitude for deletion and our longstanding rule of consensus. If

3670:

I chose the wording to cater for the difference, as in "similar care", as opposed to " lists are exactly the same".

3511:

harm to be had from requesting a second pair of eyes. It only takes a few minutes, but such a precautionary measure

3305: 7686: 7521:

As is so very evident at the talk page of that article you are making assertions that do not have enough support.

6995:

maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. ... Cover the event, not the person.

3569:

The same issues arise with lists, which are not mentioned at the moment. It would be easy to change the section to

1970:? Not even for personal quotes (assuming they are relevant)? I think you are wrong to dismiss the RS guideline. -- 1914: 1572:

BLP exists and better summary of how to do it before diving into detail in the rest of the document. Things like: "

1470:

or anything of the sort, I'd imagine they'd find the community and ArbCom taking a very dim view of what they did.

1371: 973: 921: 518: 5079:

version due to its broader scope. That phrasing disallows reintroduction of unsourced and contentious material in

2358:

has been removing anything that has been critical of Thompson for over a month, while he adds supportive material.

1451: 8250:, a point has been made that we have no proof of the existence of this person outside of "his" own webpages. The 8165:

with that last bit, an article which the editors of have agreed to abide by BLP until her status is confirmed. -

6842:

publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the

6770: 3541: 3109: 2949:

conscientiousness - It's alright to suggest that we should remember that our actions have real-world consequences

2512: 331: 7007:

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

6959:

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

4823:

it is. Given that all that's involved is an extra 5 words, I think we can choose to err on the side of clarity.

2640:

has been proposed as a formal guideline. Feel free to edit the proposal as needed, or discuss on the talk page.

1448: 1002:

in some way. Obviously if there's no consensus that an article passes the BLP we don't want it on Knowledge. --

874: 7339: 6655: 5020: 3707: 2103: 658:

The burden of Verifiability is the burden of showing that adequate sources exist. That is already included in

4308:

If you want to emphasize "fix or delete" why not complete the thought with "and should not be restored unless

2790:

Bad example. Not thinking so much of the trademark, as maybe disparaging the specific animal involved. Maybe "

2359: 1756:). What can I do to stop these kind of edits without having to argue until I'm blue in the face every time??? 871: 6111:

sources, rather than private living individuals not being reported on or not publicizing their information. (

5801: 1195: 6982:

In response to, "there is nothing in the current policy regarding those who are notable for being victims":

6661:

not enough to easily steal their identity. The other key piece of information is the person's birthdate.

3997:

There is no substitute for reasonable knowlesgeable editors making evidence-based edits. Personally, I find

2668: 1545:

The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies;

701:

this policy to cover. Perhaps if they made one, there might be less opposition to claims of "implications".

6736: 6526: 6358:

and is a perfectly good reason to remove past names from people who are not vocal about outing themselves.

5909:

Lawsuits naming the subject as a plaintiff or defendant, or in which the subject appeared as a star witness

5666: 5293:

of a person's life, published by independent commentators in reliable sources? Writing about a person is a

5280:

sources, rather than private living individuals not being reported on or not publicizing their information.

5023:). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. 4187: 3546:

Somehow during the editing of this page a few days ago, an IP removed contentious from the opening section

1192: 759: 2778: 2131:

If the subject of the article requests deletion, is it done provided the requester is indeed that person?

127:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Knowledge page

8290: 8270: 8017:

the same Google problem as would a BLP about that person. Is best practice that the redirect be deleted?

6894: 6560: 6320:

As to whether to mention the former name in the article, I think the answer is pretty well covered under

4803:

I don't object to the restoration of the original text. However, I can't understand why you would revert

3965: 2732:

I've contacted Michael Howard's office, who confirm that Owlperson is a hoaxer, whom I've indef blocked.

2414: 2335: 2126: 3400:

thing you want to do is post to all the places the trolls watch. In the case of a content dispute over

3083:

the absolute highest standards of conformity with the requirements of reliable sourcing and neutrality?

2825:

Since there's some dispute on which adjectives should describe how we edit articles, I figure we should

2201:

This page has very wide acceptance in my experience of dealing with editors who want to see it applied.

1497:

isn't illuminating because, well, it's hypothetical. Let's handle the case calmly if it ever occurs. --

6812: 5026: 4312:

are found and cited" or words to that effect. The "don't restore" could stand to be emphasised too...

4209:

Lists are not the same as articles. They are more akin to categories and need certainty for inclusion.

129:. Can BLP1E be used as a reason for AfD if the person is non notable besides ther death? Or should the 38: 6066:(as you say). But here is the catch. An aggregation of established facts sourced from news stories is 5929:

Dates and circumstances of "comebacks", if applicable (entertainers and political figures, especially)

5310:(a featured biographical article), the article can feel strange in places (compare to something like 4028:

I would only add the qualifier that he denied being a "Born-again Christian", not a Christian per se.

3613:

ArbCom does not and should not dictate policy or consensus; editors do. I have changed the section to

1725: 715:

There is no crusade, only a series of attempts to clarify the policy and to prevent its dilution (viz

6235:

clear that discussing somebody's medical conditions and past names is forbidden by Knowledge rules.--

5951:

sometimes placed on these aspects of a person's life. Why, for instance, is there a whole article on

3562: 2353: 1748:

the same debates over and over and over again. The article that I'm having trouble with this week is

274: 7715:

There is no exception for talk pages or any other namespace, nor is there ever likely to be one. --

6899:

My attempt to insert the following principle approved by the arbcom by a vote of 11-0 was reverted:

2391:

You said: "The news article went beyond that undisputed fact to include an allegation from a single

8469: 7197: 5412:

and the "not a tabloid" provision of this policy cover the appropriate use of news sources in BLPs.

3777:

self-identification to someone else as I do not work all that much with lists of living people. --

2589:

That's a very helpful observation, thank you. (And, yes, notabiity is best dealt with separately.)

1318:

I agree with you. I also, however, think we should make every effort to get the community involved

8502:...in case anyone complains, I think they're great and improve the logic and clarity of the page. 7842:

BLP applies to all publicly accessible space at Wikimedia, which obviously includes Knowledge. --

5922:, loss of family member, bankruptcy, firing, loss of reputation or social status ("pariah-hood"), 5578:

using news stories, and scraps of information, to write a BLP about Person A is nothing more than

5324:, rather than just merely report the facts), then we should be honest and put a disclaimer saying 3910:. To simplify matters: secondary sources say he converted to Christianity. He denies that he did. 3614: 3570: 3304:

removed without prior discussion as far as I can tell) has been in the policy for at least a year

8367:, I'm not sure it's necessary to mention in the BLP policy, which is primarily about content. -- 6863: 5619: 5419: 5201: 5016: 3703: 3157:

Human dignity is the form of words favored by the arbitration committee, and with good reason. --

1802: 1553: 1309:. Then when you have community agreement that the article should not be deleted, undelete it. -- 254:

for the manner of their death, we probably want to consider heeding the advice of this policy to'

7716: 7626: 7580: 7477: 7434: 7226: 6465:

This policy already empowers you to do all the things you want this policy to empower you to do

5163: 5038:

I was bold and rolled my suggestion above in before I saw this one, but either works for me. -

4401: 4360: 4267: 3897: 3846:

or a mainstream paper) lists them as X religion, then that should be taken as acceptable under

3467: 3409: 3342: 3308: 3207: 3158: 3113: 2802:, the info might be included to disparage the entity they're associated with, in this case the 2720: 1932: 1739: 1728: 1590:

I think this sounds wise. There is so much ambiguity surrounding this; detail is a good thing.

1498: 1409: 1310: 1164: 1091: 1051: 1003: 940: 864: 807:(whatever)" but not necessarily as a "Convert from (prior faith)". Does that sound reasonable? 720: 681: 596: 538: 356: 313: 259: 8279:

People are presumed to be reliable sources about themselves. However, notable things are the

7993:??? He certainly feels happy to remove all sorts of alleged BLP violations everywhere else. -- 2255: 1913:

Some people maintain blogs designed entirely to criticize others. Here's one that got by me:

8379: 4376: 3865: 2707: 2167: 1265: 755: 5857:

information, and they quote Jimbo's statement about the "sum of all human knowledge". Well,

4660: 4646: 3422:

e-mail), then it's almost surely a case of obvious vandalism and/or trolling (in which case

3025:...and a judicious approach to all articles must be used to ensure fair, unbiased treatment. 2489: 2351: 1090:. Given your expressed belief above, I think you may find the reality quite surprising. -- 496:

And WillyD is not the only one who doesn't think so. Fred is quite welcome to muck in here.

8180: 8036: 7592: 7525: 7321: 7178: 7141: 7114: 7102: 4052: 4029: 3998: 2893: 2424: 1891: 1485: 1368: 970: 918: 706: 667: 626: 515: 385: 174: 159: 8054:

who is no longer living, there has been {an} editor(s) slandering him by suggesting that "

7110:

Oh and I also removed the names of her pets because they are private individuals too! ;)

510:

some respect -- therefore it can't be restored." That attitude should not be encouraged.

8: 8295: 7668: 7293: 7081: 4718: 2782: 2693:(I'm a little surprised no-one's thrown that one at you already!) and note the advice in 2062: 1931:

disregard the guideline in the meantime if by following it you will break this policy. --

1904: 1848: 1824: 1776: 1772: 1714: 1710: 1657: 1636: 1632: 1541:, and biographical material anywhere on Knowledge, with the following practice in mind: 201: 6411:

was once a woman.. are we really saying we wouldn't mention it in Knowledge??? heh... --

4295: 4196: 4163:

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

3583: 3563: 2563: 2522: 2345: 8095: 8051: 7699: 7552: 7444: 7377: 7373: 7354: 6725: 6705: 6645:

Nothing, for now. If you become famous, then we can add a disambiguation page. :) --

6359: 5818:(it is the very definition of NNPOV); (3) it neglects entirely the very clearly stated 3907: 3084: 3013:...and the subjects of our articles must be approached impartially and conscientiously. 2978: 2820: 1806: 1652: 1531: 1471: 1323: 1291: 1214: 1202: 147: 130: 6858:

be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the

6482: 6420:

I'm not sure Sonjaaa is saying what you read her (him?) to be saying. She (he?) says

6382: 4512:

I mainly disagree with the second paragraph as I think it places too much emphasis on

3021:...and a thoughtful, balanced treatment must be given to the subjects of our articles. 2500:

works as well for cases needing dispute resolution, but is a more formal process). --

2465:

My second question is what is the proper way to request an evaluation by BLP experts?

2270: 1651:

I find that I spend an inordinate amount of my time as an admin trying in vain to fix

913:

then the policy should be reworded so that the interpretation is expressly excluded.

8369: 8337: 8184: 8101: 8070: 7793: 7639: 7253: 7051: 7035: 6752: 6294:

persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

6166: 6138: 6127: 5780: 5676: 5499: 5170: 5147: 5108: 5085: 5049: 4973: 4949: 4928: 4911: 4887: 4846: 4742: 4688: 4603: 4561: 4522: 4518:

When in doubt, derogatory material that is not properly sourceable should be removed.

4480: 4450: 4423: 4383: 4327: 4299: 4281: 3943: 3779: 3734: 3649: 3619: 3550: 3517: 3428: 3371: 3359: 3327: 3276: 3181: 3128: 3073: 3002: 2615: 2590: 2576: 2545: 2502: 2343: 2318: 2182: 2132: 2092: 2036: 1972: 1680: 1511: 500: 420: 6012:"To me, that is invading his privacy, and can also end up being original research." 3968:. The question is then whether it is right to list him with converts to a religion. 2924:

point of view, not a compassionate one, not a favourable one, and not a hostile one.

2566:

version and trimmed as necessary. In its trimmed state, the article has issues with

2267: 693:

unsourced statements must be removed, rather than tagged. A handful of people would

8262: 8162: 7990: 7941: 7892: 7851: 6564: 6257:

be relevant, and includable. I'm not sure I'm aware of any examples, but it seems

5311: 5186:

If it's unsourced, remove it. I think this is bolded in the introduction. Cheers,

3860: 3369:

advantage in what may be a legitimate content dispute should not be encouraged. --

2703: 2179: 1798: 1786: 6609:. COI is probably a better place to discuss how to handle conflicts of interest. 5903:

Spouses and liasons of issue, number of children and their years born, their names

5701:

The subjudice concerns are more about actual legal requirements in some countries

5409: 3767:, but not for lists. Can anyone clarify the boundaries of "self-identification"?-- 2962: 1660:). Trying to delete these articles is never successful (as technically, they pass 820: 8460: 8220: 8033: 8018: 7683: 7589: 7522: 7384: 7318: 7187:

I wouldn't be comfortable with that. I suggest clarifying the policy instead. --

7175: 7138: 7128: 7123:

Oh my, I hope this isn't policy now. Do we have to take out the parents names in

7111: 7099: 7089: 6939: 6884: 6613: 6579: 6545: 6471: 6437: 6397: 6381:

The first point is explicitly spelt out exactly where Jaysweet said it would be:

6309: 6220: 6182: 6156: 6112: 6087: 6034: 5989: 5960: 5939: 5863: 5831: 5810: 5734: 5615: 5592: 5368: 5360: 5307: 5190: 5132: 4814:

It's a given that an editor can always source, it doesn't need spelling out here.

4780: 4760: 4750: 4732: 4635: 4339: 4316: 4253: 4235: 4004: 3942:

himself. Dylan has refused to directly comment on his prior involvement with the

3423: 3239: 3031: 2989: 2946:

impartiality - hell, yes! Just the (verifiable, relevant, neutral) facts, please.

2905: 2834: 2236: 2202: 2074: 1998: 1946: 1482: 1467: 1364: 1116: 1068: 966: 914: 884: 789: 766: 702: 663: 622: 621:, and even that is clouded by the usual debate about what sources are reliable. 566: 511: 472: 452: 365: 292: 282: 171: 156: 143: 106: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

8489: 8475: 8304: 8196: 8166: 8133: 8111: 8079: 7985:

calls accredited doping expert and professor of cellular and molecular biology

7967: 7776: 7729: 7665: 7499: 7369: 7343: 7335: 7307: 7277: 7267: 7241: 7188: 7150: 6877: 6838: 6593: 5815: 5718: 5388: 5351: 5260: 5255: 5251: 5096: 5066: 5039: 4996: 4963: 4677: 4664: 4650: 4168:

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

4007: 3826: 3630: 3604: 2927:

As for some of the terms proposed above, I believe most pose serious problems:

2751: 2698: 2671: 2655: 2637: 2630: 2571: 2485: 2313: 2260: 1843: 1820: 1768: 1706: 1628: 1581: 1494: 1462: 1436: 1255: 1185: 1031: 660:

inadequately sourced negative statements about living persons should be removed

619:

inadequately sourced negative statements about living persons should be removed

476: 308: 240: 197: 7364:

Agreed. The idea that Knowledge can shield people from facts reported by the

2798:) could be subject to inaccurate statements. And in some of those cases, like 8446: 8413: 8394:

Lack of listed affiliation is not evidence that the person is not affiliated?

8328: 8087: 8059: 7986: 7768: 7759: 7755: 7725: 6912:

prohibiting editors from participating in or prolonging such victimization.

6859: 6808: 6714: 6646: 6589: 6515: 6498: 6488:

Regarding whether to mention a person's past identity in an article, I think

6449: 6412: 6355: 6342: 6338: 6325: 5858: 5850: 5841: 5730: 5722: 5714: 5485: 5347: 5244: 4210: 4106: 4066: 4043: 4018: 3969: 3935: 3911: 3851: 3830: 3817: 3807: 3803: 3745: 3671: 3594: 3574: 2803: 2733: 2690: 2574:, but that's a matter that is best considered separately from BLP issues. -- 2567: 2541: 2526: 2497: 2466: 2459: 2444: 2382: 2377: 2355: 2339: 2331: 2299: 2290: 2172: 2142: 2118: 1899: 1863: 1549: 605: 407: 345: 7264:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Amir Massoud Tofangsazan (second nomination)

6341:.... (although then again I'm not aware of it ever having been a problem) -- 5853:. Many people seem to be under the impression that Knowledge should include 5618:

provision of the NPOV policy, the "relevance" provision of this policy, and

4001: 3802:. I think the term "self-identification" should be striked out. The current 3763:

somewhat understand this requirement, even as restrictive as it may be, for

2289:

we know those details will fade into oblivion after the heat of a campaign?

2113:". I don't really follow his logic, since the template is specifically for 8409: 8354: 8176: 8125: 8091: 8063: 7788:

by the police in connection with drug-running and that translates into Foo

7772: 7636: 7331: 7250: 7124: 7048: 6636: 6632: 6507: 6494: 6489: 6372: 6333: 6321: 6236: 6202: 5912:

Inventions, publications, major creations, or other notable creative output

5726: 5623: 5122: 4901: 4858: 4309: 4176: 3825:

Well, where qualifiers exist, they need to be included, otherwise it isn't

3799: 3790: 3768: 3681: 3662: 3355: 3027:? These are just suggested - I'm married to the meaning, not the wording. 2795: 2694: 2685: 2680:

I would say that, no, you can't alter the article without sourcing, as the

2481: 2309: 2058: 1887: 1883: 1811: 1757: 1702: 1691: 1676: 1665: 1591: 1246: 1226: 998:

Sorry I didn't spot this comment until today. I'm sorry if my stance seems

497: 416: 221: 6216:

be relevant and encyclopaedic. Is this in regards to a specific article?

5339: 4769:

belong in Knowledge. (And no, I'm not a Republican or a Bush supporter). -

4674:

WP:Citing sources#When adding material to the biography of a living person

2413:

In order to help Sbowers3 "provide the criteria for evaluating the case,"

825: 645:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

8188: 8083: 7982: 7934: 7885: 7844: 6793: 6708:

the real name of singer Fergie, is a simple redirect to an article named

6025: 5956: 5846: 5819: 5489: 5399: 5384: 5346:

can be redirected (following the decision here). I've already redirected

5343: 5215:

down and not being seen as the "stop and think" flag it really should be.

4770: 4252:

it won't be unsourced or poorly sourced, and this provision won't apply.

3847: 3729: 2681: 2477: 2376:'s dispute with another editor and myself, I'd like to better understand 1917: 1749: 1661: 1481:

You'd think, but the arbcom don't seem to care as long as BLP is cited.

340: 5709:

for details. The US has less stringent requirements than some countries.

4857:

someone believes there are good sources, they can be added at any time.

1574:

Accordingly, editors must take particular care with writing and editing

1537:

Accordingly, editors must take particular care with writing and editing

8450: 8251: 7381: 6936: 6917: 6881: 6836:: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the 6778: 6610: 6468: 6434: 6394: 6306: 6217: 5706: 5665:

guideline. Specifically, in-article disclaimers are redundant with the

5520: 5219: 5187: 4746: 4728: 4631: 4336: 4313: 3843: 3236: 3028: 2986: 2902: 2831: 2410:". You can't remove an opinion just because you don't like the opinion. 2146: 1995: 1201:

Very good point, and implemented, no consensus is a default to a keep.

1113: 1065: 881: 785: 763: 580: 563: 488: 463: 449: 439: 183: 134: 8445:

and so on, is probably verging into OR and might violate the rules of

8291:

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C1007304

5840:

It is the "nontrivial" bit that is the problem here. I am saying that

5383:– At heart, this policy does not conflict with other policies such as 5367:. Please say if you object to or agree with any of the above. Thanks. 5239:

Private individuals. Different countries have different privacy laws.

3647:

authority over the content of policies, except as regular editors. --

3515:

prevent (deliberate or accidental) misuse or abuse of admin tools. --

3017:...and a fair treatment must be given to the subjects of all articles. 3011:

Hmm, what about something like "measure" or "judiciousness" then? Or

8486:

Knowledge talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 9#External links

8385: 7095: 4870:

Not quite. The presence of poorly sourced material in BLPs should be

4221: 3939: 3926: 3426:

takes over) rather than a potentially legitimate content dispute. --

2965:), except that which comes through the neutral presentation of facts. 2215: 2189: 1658:

a relative of a politician who gets arrested for marijuana possession

5891:

Childhood hobbies and avocations if related to reason for notability

2525:

for speedy deletion as an attack page based on my interpretation of

662:; and is in any case old business, long before this policy existed. 8078:

Articles for deceased persons are still covered by the policies on

8012:

Query about redirects regarding a person notable only for one event

7169:

persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.

7065:

I've seen issues with this come up in several different contexts.

6684: 6328:, although obviously that makes reversion of the OR more critical). 5333: 5083:

cases as opposed to just when an editor "intends to find sources".

4717:

background in WP:BLP could take a look at the question. Thanks. --

4006:"There's only one road and it leads to Calvary." to be convincing. 3408:

have an advantage. That is precisely what this policy is about. --

3104:

opinions, but not in a way that suggests prurience, muckraking, or

2934:

decorum - I don't think propriety or politeness is the word we want

1285:

community together, and really get in as many people as we can, to

1088:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision

2428:

Thompson is a politician and such critique goes with the territory

1882:

as a type of personal correspondence which is allowable under the

8192: 3934:

It is also true that the "he" denying the conversion of Dylan is

2141:

Most often not, even if they propose the article for deletion on

1753: 1627:

ranks wikipedia in the top-ten most trafficked sites on the net.

1277:

group doing and supporting the deletion every time, but we had a

325:

Knowledge biographies of living persons are suitable for tabloids

212:

this particularly often arises in the context of internet memes.

8365:

Knowledge:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names

8281:

subjects of multiple reliable sources independent of the subject

6631:

Add a section addressing a FAQ: e.g., there is an article about

5897:

All notable adult occupations and/or public service offices held

4779:

National Enquirer stuff would be one of the first things to go.

2968:

sensitivity - to whom? In what way? How much? Too subjective ...

1457:

I think we generally apply the rule of reason. If I saw someone

834:

I've clarified the wording in the "Disputed deletions" section.

762:

might reasonably be created to deal with the situation. Cheers,

6709: 5915:

Debilitating or mortal illnesses, injuries or health conditions

4947:

the option of corroboration is noted as long as it's noted. --

3842:

people categories. I also think that if a reliable source (say

2799: 550:

I more or less agree with this. It's not even implicit - it's

8179:

deserves a well-referenced, accurate biography... but so does

7961:

While there's no denying that BLP talk page deletion can in a

4818:

Well, I beg to differ. The policy, as currently worded, makes

4741:

After reading the article, it seems to me to be a bad case of

3019:? Or does that present the same danger in misinterpretation? 2458:

is avoiding my question which I now restate: Do we stick with

5774:) and when no general biographical information is available ( 3839: 3806:

policy, which relies on reputable sources, should be enough.

2308:

On your second point ... it depends. If the single source is

2070: 1624: 6916:

decreed it prohibits. Therefore, I am replacing the text. ←

6393:, although I'm not sure there's much practical difference. 6078:. Two extreme examples, admittedly, but do you see my point? 4659:

I have restored the old wording. It clearly conflicted with

8248:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Mark Hucko (2nd nomination)

7904:

wide for fanboys and making solid word that much harder. --

6700: 5871:

Let me give some examples of nontrivial biographical data (

5365:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III and Noelle Bush

2156: 1225:

while a hasty undelete could potentially harm the subject.

462:

Any objection to making this clear in this current policy?

7342:) that I think puts the whole matter into perspective. -- 5884:

Childhood socioeconomic status, ethnic status if notable (

5233:

Notability guidelines should not trump BLP consideration:

4335:

I think this makes clear the "fixing in an option" point.

4158:

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3759:

as restrictive as some individuals may seem to believe. I

484:

I'm not the only one who thinks the line should be added:

7365: 5824:

the threshold for inclusion on Knowledge is verifiability

3855: 5570:

Knowledge article, Knowledge articles are only really a

5206:

I've been writing a fair bit on these issues over at an

4708:

There's been an ongoing discussion for some time now in

4896:

Not quite. The poorly sourced material must be removed

2985:

lead any halfway intelligent reader to conclude this.

2398:

My response: According to BLP at the top of the page, "

8422:

for this inconsistency is some given reason, such as:

6424:

a lot which is really the key. If the information is

5705:

to mention various things about an ongoing trial. See

5117:

Just to clarify, BLP is a policy, and as such it does

5019:, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see 3464:

even if there is clearly a legitimate content dispute.

2650:

Can subject alter his bio without having to source it?

7404:

But getting back to my bold edit, the new version is:

6745:

editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

4877:

Simply tagging content for improvement is not enough.

4704:

Question about removal of a National Enquirer article

2276:

Are the rules any different for political candidates?

1548:

If the subject edits the article, it is important to

593:

in. Otherwise life goes on and we all do our best.

125:

which is very true, yet the first line of BLP states

4136:

List of notable people who converted to Christianity

3904:

List of notable people who converted to Christianity

3350:

No it isn't, because very few people are willing to

2111:

adding {{blp}} tag since living persons are involved

1534:

when they are in fact trying to edit in good faith.

8335:we should write an article about them are moot. -- 8246:I have a question that I think needs answering. In 6082:

point to the content and say the source must be OK.

5025:Content may be re-added when it is corroborated by 2161: 8484:Previous discussion of "External links" occurs in 7225:stop ourselves from aping their worst excesses. -- 5988:impression as a reader, rather than as an editor. 4759:Yes. Should be merged back into the main article. 3902:The case that has brought this up is Bob Dylan on 2779:Oprah#Rankings_as_world.27s_most_influential_woman 802:A particular problem might arise if an individual 339:which almost completely rely on tabloids like the 7338:wrote up a very excellent post about the matter ( 5574:to whichever living person the article is about. 4958:How about at end of the first paragraph, we add: 2781:?) not sure if that's really a BLP issue though. 717:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff 118:, therefore BLP in it's entirety does not apply. 8062:should be for the living as well as the dead.▪◦▪ 6021:, which is clearly the spirit and intent of BLP. 5862:of excluding unencyclopedic material from BLPs. 5523:matters is covered at all in Knowledge policies? 4195:I am again proposing the addition at the end of 1614:" Cite? Top-ten of what? As determined by whom? 826:_obtain_consensus-2007-06-30T08:32:00.000Z": --> 821:_obtain_consensus-2007-06-30T08:32:00.000Z": --> 7682:an article is appropriate in the first place. 7330:Part of this popped up because of a dispute on 6673:I think this is a really weird guideline. You 5881:Identities and occupations of parents/guardians 5283:The problems with writing about living people: 4710:Talk:George W. Bush substance abuse controversy 1842:Time and again I see criminal issues pop up at 6279:been published by a reliable secondary source. 3582:Proposed addition for a new section to follow 3321:Perhaps rewording to this text is acceptable: 1647:This policy needs to address coatrack articles 1435:I'm a little confused. So an admin can delete 6787:On widely reported scandals of living persons 5418:– Since BLP is effectively based in NPOV and 2538:remove invalid speedy tag; not an attack page 1857:Admin Noticeboard: Misuse of Infobox criminal 6735:Also please note the following excerpt from 5529:- my comments were directed particularly at 5484:– I fully support your decision to redirect 3617:and have added Tyrenius' sentence above. -- 1851:is nice, but I think we need something like 18:Knowledge talk:Biographies of living persons 7767:What you are stating would likely not be a 7163:The relevant statement from the policy is: 6263:Category:Transgender and transsexual people 5488:and would not oppose a similar redirect of 4835:That's not entirely accurate. Roger Davies 2488:(this includes a requirement to not place " 1560:criticism. If it does, delete that portion. 6601:This last point is very salient. This is 6076:Paris Hilton (collection of media stories) 5953:George W. Bush substance abuse controversy 5318:Illustrating the point with a disclaimer: 4017:That would be conjectural interpretation. 7678:peoples' names, and follow their example 6802:The policy does already address the issue 5531:biographical articles about living people 3850:. I think my views are aligned more with 2943:understanding - too similar to compassion 2087:BLP template on non-biographical articles 1252:What is the potential harm if I undelete? 6699:still named by its calls. Same with say 6694:WP: policy regarding BLP article name??? 2162:_policy2?-2007-07-04T16:29:00.000Z": --> 2157:_policy2?-2007-07-04T16:29:00.000Z": --> 823:Disputed deletions: seek consensus-: --> 6603:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons 6305:present it and see what people think. 3956:Here is a relevant quote about Dylan: " 3404:policy, those querying the information 2402:material must be removed immediately." 1877:Changing Reliable Sources under Sources 1112:sake of following precendence. Cheers, 676:As you ought to know, this policy goes 14: 6607:Knowledge:all policies rolled into one 6510:would apply in that case, of course... 5121:derive from RS, which is a guideline. 3417:Temporary full protection of the page 1701:This isn't a new phenomenon. Look at 1556:for content decisions in this regard); 406:He is signing the checks, though... -- 121:So what's the case here? BLP1E states 114:the biography is not of a (currently) 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 8498:Today's edits by Geni and Blackfalcon 6765:Might stubs sometimes be appropriate? 6463:The short of it definitely is though 4796:Sourcing as an alternative to removal 4355:In all honesty, Michael, I think the 4266:Good catch. I didn't notice that. -- 3299:Admin intervention within this policy 2702:number to join too, could you? :) -- 7262:I beg to differ. This reminds me of 6284:WP:BLP, on relatively unknown people 5828:If a subject is deemed to be notable 5580:Person A (summary of media coverage) 5426:a good inclusion/exclusion standard. 25: 8449:. Do I understand this correctly?-- 8331:enough for inclusion, questions of 8130:Biographies of Contemporary Persons 8094:guideline. If the statement in the 6559:are denied in mainspace ([remember 6506:. A very strict interpretation of 6504:whether the subject likes it or not 6068:in itself an interpretive synthesis 4943:OK. It doesn't really matter to me 3960:" What he did say was that he had " 3396:When removing bad information, the 2940:compassion - see my initial comment 2523:this archived version of an article 1030:good as we have got at the moment. 433:Badlydrawnjeff RfAR and this policy 230:I would say that you might use the 23: 8261:Basically, my question is: should 6196:former names of transsexual people 5849:refers to things that have passed 5822:which says in plain language that 4192:The addition has now been removed. 2958:fair mindedness - same as fairness 2670:for impersonating Michael Howard, 2484:and must cover the subject from a 415:He isn't anymore, I don't think. - 24: 8524: 8242:source is a person's own webpages 7724:Agreed, talkpages are subject to 7061:Sefl-published sources limitation 5949:excessive detail and undue weight 2334:wants to remove, and has removed 1552:and deal with them politely (see 364:What POV are we trying to push? — 8058:" without any reliable sources, 6485:-- so I have no complaint there. 5338:"I've prepared a new section at 4810:In your edit summary you wrote: 2667:The above user has been blocked 2570:and may be a good candidate for 2423:Also an admin. did discuss this. 235:person can travel and do damage 29: 7029:All of this is already covered 6811:, there will be a multitude of 6771:Michael Kay (software engineer) 6267:Category:Transsexual porn stars 5932:Date, place, and cause of death 4885:appropriate action is removal. 4220:new thread on this subject). -- 2691:conflict of interest guidelines 2417:and full quote he disputes is: 2061:were to write on his blog that 1612:Knowledge is a top-ten website. 332:Knowledge:What Knowledge is not 256:cover the event, not the person 8183:, and for that matter so does 5243:It is the very essence of the 5021:Knowledge:No original research 3708:Knowledge:No original research 2766:a recent AfD about a dead goat 2104:Fox News Channel controversies 13: 1: 8046:Biographies of living persons 6033:collection of news stories". 5291:thoughtful, critical analysis 5285:"Do think it is OK to build 1576:biographies of living persons 1539:biographies of living persons 738:Religion section of this page 377:psst.. jimmy wales isn't god. 269:Latin phrase (nil nisi bonum) 7463:false) was the nine couples. 7443:at least get that straight. 6769:There's an article about me 6737:Knowledge:Naming conventions 5663:"No disclaimers in articles" 5245:biographies of living people 2695:the autobiography guidelines 1789:. I think this is relevant. 880:This seems uncontraversial. 760:Category:Former Zoroastrians 7: 8514:21:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 8493:09:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 8479:09:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 8464:18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 8454:14:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 8389:22:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 8348:Use of subject's first name 7240:. Enough BLP paranoia. -- 7094:I just removed the name of 6807:In the case of significant 6561:Gordon James Klingenschmitt 6389:, rather than a nonbinding 5208:ongoing deletion discussion 4826:On my talk page you wrote: 4247:Removing unsourced material 3615:WP:BLP#Categories and lists 3571:WP:BLP#Categories and lists 2952:benevolence - violates NPOV 2764:Well, it was brought up in 2613:You're welcome. :) Cheers, 2400:unsourced or poorly sourced 10: 8529: 8374:18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 8358:14:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 8342:22:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 8323:21:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 8274:14:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 8224:22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 8040:08:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 8026:06:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 7998:08:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 6627:Famous people with my name 6536:===Conflict of interest=== 5878:Date and location of birth 5809:I think this statement by 5332:Case study (the family of 5031:These principles apply ... 2102:the {{blp}} template onto 8215:19:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 8170:18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 8152:17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 8115:17:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 8106:17:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 8073:17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 7971:11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 7957:18:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 7947:09:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 7909:21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 7898:21:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 7866:21:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 7857:20:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 7818:20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 7804:20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 7780:20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 7763:20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 7743:20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 7733:18:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 7720:18:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 7710:17:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 7694:20:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 7672:20:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 7644:14:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7630:13:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7596:12:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7584:12:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7558:08:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7529:08:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7503:04:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7481:04:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7450:03:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7438:03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7390:13:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 7360:06:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 7347:06:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 7325:18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 7311:11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 7297:05:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 7281:18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 7271:11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 7258:05:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 7245:04:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 7230:04:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 7192:22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 7182:10:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 7154:07:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 7145:22:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7132:22:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7118:21:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7106:21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7085:18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 7056:03:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 7040:21:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 6945:21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 6921:21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 6890:13:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 6797:07:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 6782:08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 6757:22:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 6731:20:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 6718:02:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 6688:18:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 6650:15:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 6640:15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 6619:03:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 6597:01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 6583:01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 6568:01:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 6553:01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 6519:20:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6477:20:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6453:20:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6443:20:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6416:20:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6403:20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6376:20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6363:18:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6346:17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6315:17:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6240:16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6226:16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6206:15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6186:13:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6177:12:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6160:11:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6149:07:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6091:23:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6038:02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 5993:14:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5964:14:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5943:13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5867:11:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5835:15:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 5785:19:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 5738:19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 5681:18:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 5596:16:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 5504:15:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 5372:10:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 5196:13:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5181:08:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5152:23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 5140:23:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 5131:but no matter I suppose. 5126:21:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 5113:21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 5100:20:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 5090:20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 5070:20:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 5054:20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 5043:20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 5000:20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4978:20:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4967:20:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4954:20:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4939:19:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4916:20:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4905:20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4892:20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4862:19:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4851:19:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4784:15:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4774:15:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4764:12:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4755:05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4737:05:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4722:05:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4699:16:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4681:16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4668:16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4654:15:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4640:20:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4608:22:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4565:22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4527:21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4484:21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4455:21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4427:20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4405:20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4387:18:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4364:18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4345:19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4331:18:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4322:18:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4303:18:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4286:18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4271:18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4261:18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4239:01:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 3906:, currently discussed on 3872:18:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 3558:16:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 3522:21:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3471:20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3433:19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3413:19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3376:19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3364:18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3346:18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3332:18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3312:18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3281:21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3245:21:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3211:21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3186:21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3162:20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3143:19:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3133:18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3117:18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3090:06:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3078:23:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3037:22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3007:21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2995:21:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2911:20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2897:20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2840:20:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2811:20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2786:18:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2737:13:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2675:17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1892:Fred Saberhagen talk page 1595:09:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 1585:00:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 1055:22:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 1035:19:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 944:19:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 926:18:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 890:16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 869:08:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 689:Only in the respect that 275:De mortuis nil nisi bonum 109:in AfD for murder victims 8056:he sponsored Nazi causes 7579:support on Knowledge. -- 6072:Isaac Newton (biography) 5900:Geographical relocations 4909:I have responded below. 4225:15:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 4214:15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 4180:16:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 4125:15:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 4110:14:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 4080:14:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 4070:14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 4060:13:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 4047:13:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 4037:13:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 4022:13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 4011:13:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 3973:13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 3952:13:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 3930:12:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 3915:08:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 3834:00:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 3821:23:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3811:22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3794:20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3784:19:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3772:18:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3749:18:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3739:17:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3685:18:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3675:17:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3666:17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3654:18:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3634:18:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3624:17:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3608:16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3598:16:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3578:14:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3505:interpretation of policy 2773:10:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2759:17:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2724:02:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2712:22:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 2663:20:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 2645:11:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2620:07:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2601:07:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2581:07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2556:07:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2507:16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2470:13:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2448:13:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2435:08:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2386:02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2365:22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 2323:19:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 2303:19:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 2294:18:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 2265:07:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2244:10:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2219:19:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2210:19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2193:19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2177:16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2150:06:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2136:06:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2122:01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2040:17:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 2004:22:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1977:19:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1954:19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1936:17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1921:14:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1908:04:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1871:18:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 1832:14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 1815:17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1794:16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1781:16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1761:17:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1743:16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1732:16:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1719:16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1695:16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1685:16:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1669:16:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1641:06:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 1619:00:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 1502:17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 1489:08:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 1477:08:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 1446:16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1413:17:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1376:18:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1361:take it to the community 1329:14:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1314:10:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1307:take it to the community 1297:10:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1259:06:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1230:06:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1220:06:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1208:05:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1190:05:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1168:15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1122:16:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1095:10:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1074:03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1007:15:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 978:03:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 812:22:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 794:22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 772:20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 748:20:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 724:19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 711:19:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 685:18:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 672:18:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 631:16:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 606:hallmarks of bad process 600:14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 584:13:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 572:13:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 542:09:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 523:08:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 505:06:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 492:06:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 480:05:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 467:01:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 458:01:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 443:01:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 425:20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 411:20:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 369:17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 360:17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 349:17:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 317:13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 296:12:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 286:12:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 263:17:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 250:When a person is famous 244:16:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 225:12:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 206:09:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 187:19:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 178:14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 163:14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 151:13:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 138:13:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 7304:Tammy sex video scandal 6864:Knowledge:Verifiability 5906:Arrests and convictions 5733:or any other policies? 5620:Knowledge:Verifiability 5420:Knowledge:Verifiability 5017:Knowledge:Verifiability 4661:WP:V#Burden of evidence 4647:WP:V#Burden of evidence 3962:a born again experience 3710:(and also expressed in 3704:Knowledge:Verifiability 3573:and tweak the wording. 2745:Definition of "Persons" 2109:with the explaination " 1803:Knowledge:Avoiding harm 1554:Knowledge:Autobiography 1452:_obtain_consensus": --> 1449:_obtain_consensus": --> 1445:_obtain_consensus": --> 1433:_obtain_consensus": --> 1196:_obtain_consensus": --> 1193:_obtain_consensus": --> 1189:_obtain_consensus": --> 1182:_obtain_consensus": --> 875:_obtain_consensus": --> 872:_obtain_consensus": --> 868:_obtain_consensus": --> 832:_obtain_consensus": --> 650:Knowledge:Verifiability 8271:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 7024: 7017: 7009: 6997: 6989: 6977: 6969: 6961: 6906: 6874: 6747: 6656:Privacy of birth dates 6542: 6385:. It is a nonbinding 6302: 6287: 5888:if an ethnic minority) 5772:Incomplete biographies 5653:Incomplete biographies 5557:Incomplete biographies 5457:Incomplete biographies 5436:Background information 5033: 4833: 4816: 4382:aren't appropriate. -- 3068: 3058: 653: 7020: 7012: 7005: 6992: 6985: 6972: 6964: 6957: 6901: 6805: 6742: 6534: 6291: 6276: 5445:for that reason alone 5350:there, but I've left 5013: 4828: 4812: 3110:neutral point of view 3064: 3054: 2937:propriety - see above 2633:proposed as guideline 2521:Yesterday, I flagged 2486:neutral point of view 1819:I agree - I hope for 1266:I thought it was crap 1213:still equals "keep". 848:has been changed to: 756:Category:Zoroastrians 643: 42:of past discussions. 8181:Nicole Brown Simpson 7067:As currently written 6860:no original research 6527:Conflict of interest 6299:WP:BLP, on practices 6131:15:30, 14 July 2007) 6115:10:27, 14 July 2007) 6105:Clarification please 5918:Personal tragedies ( 4630:Good catch, indeed. 4601:Looks good! Thanks, 4053:Born again Christian 4030:Born again Christian 2682:verifiability policy 604:This has one of the 7236:write about people 6895:Basic human dignity 5776:Use of news reports 5768:Private individuals 5647:Private individuals 5630:Use of news reports 5551:Private individuals 5527:Use of news reports 5430:Private individuals 5406:Use of news reports 4143:re·li·gion (r-ljn) 2544:needs toning down. 2498:request for comment 2127:Deletion by request 2063:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 758:should be avoided, 133:be used instead? -- 8398:By this argument, 8096:J. Howard Marshall 8052:J. Howard Marshall 7378:New Zealand Herald 7374:The Globe and Mail 6706:Stacy Ann Ferguson 6074:is different from 6030:The New York Times 5667:general disclaimer 5636:Notability and BLP 5541:Notability and BLP 5416:Notability and BLP 4051:And the fact that 3908:User talk:Bus stop 3712:the list guideline 2979:Scarborough Rapist 2863:conscientiousness? 1807:Knowledge:Coatrack 8432:typographic error 8185:Winston Churchill 8088:original research 8024: 7799: 7641: 7556: 7448: 7358: 7255: 7127:, for example? -- 7053: 6926:Please develop a 6862:policy. See also 6729: 6551: 6261:to be the case. 6172: 6144: 6123:Historical people 5451:Historical people 5176: 5138: 4934: 4753: 4735: 4694: 4638: 4259: 4197:WP:BLP#Categories 3944:Vineyard movement 3584:WP:BLP#Categories 3564:WP:BLP#Categories 3362: 3088: 2596: 2572:proposed deletion 2551: 2408:unreliable source 2393:unreliable source 2242: 2208: 2159:why policy -: --> 1952: 1683: 1653:coatrack articles 1566: 1565: 1550:assume good faith 1475: 1374: 1327: 1295: 1218: 1206: 976: 924: 792: 709: 670: 629: 521: 502: 423: 402: 388:comment added by 155:Great response. 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 8520: 8470:Archiving error? 8412:, and it is not 8320: 8317: 8314: 8311: 8212: 8209: 8206: 8203: 8163:Natalee Holloway 8161:I'm thinking of 8149: 8146: 8143: 8140: 8092:reliable sources 8068: 8023: 8021: 7991:Alberto Contador 7801: 7797: 7691: 7640: 7555: 7447: 7387: 7357: 7254: 7198:Privacy of names 7052: 6942: 6908:The edit summary 6887: 6872: 6728: 6616: 6550: 6548: 6474: 6440: 6400: 6312: 6300: 6285: 6223: 6174: 6170: 6146: 6142: 6064:reliable sources 5764:BLP and deletion 5381:BLP and deletion 5312:Laurence Olivier 5193: 5178: 5174: 5137: 5135: 5027:reliable sources 4936: 4932: 4749: 4731: 4696: 4692: 4634: 4381: 4375: 4342: 4319: 4310:reliable sources 4258: 4256: 3868: 3863: 3702:an extension of 3358: 3242: 3087: 3034: 2992: 2908: 2881:thoughtfullness? 2872:fair mindedness? 2837: 2686:reputable source 2598: 2594: 2553: 2549: 2533:by profession. 2482:reliable sources 2415:this is the case 2404:The Boston Globe 2272: 2269: 2257: 2241: 2239: 2207: 2205: 2184: 2181: 2169: 2163: 2158: 2001: 1966:May not be used 1951: 1949: 1900:use common sense 1869: 1866: 1679: 1516: 1515: 1474: 1453: 1450: 1434: 1367: 1326: 1294: 1217: 1205: 1197: 1194: 1183: 1119: 1071: 969: 917: 887: 876: 873: 833: 827: 824:obtain consensus 822: 788: 769: 705: 666: 651: 625: 569: 514: 501: 455: 419: 401: 382: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 8528: 8527: 8523: 8522: 8521: 8519: 8518: 8517: 8500: 8472: 8396: 8382: 8350: 8318: 8315: 8312: 8309: 8244: 8210: 8207: 8204: 8201: 8147: 8144: 8141: 8138: 8064: 8048: 8019: 8014: 7794: 7773:reliable source 7702: 7687: 7385: 7200: 7092: 7063: 7033:in the policy. 6940: 6897: 6885: 6873: 6870: 6789: 6767: 6696: 6658: 6629: 6614: 6592:has a page. -- 6546: 6529: 6483:WP:MOS#Identity 6472: 6438: 6398: 6383:WP:MOS#Identity 6310: 6301: 6298: 6286: 6283: 6269:. The phrase - 6221: 6198: 6167: 6139: 6107: 5804: 5363:and taken from 5361:User:Carcharoth 5340:Jeb Bush#Family 5308:Jake Gyllenhaal 5204: 5202:Some new topics 5191: 5171: 5166: 5133: 4929: 4798: 4706: 4689: 4379: 4373: 4340: 4317: 4254: 4249: 4190: 3900: 3866: 3861: 3567: 3553:semper fictilis 3544: 3301: 3240: 3032: 2990: 2906: 2835: 2823: 2747: 2689:careful of the 2652: 2635: 2591: 2546: 2519: 2494:BLP noticeboard 2278: 2271:_policy2?": --> 2268:_policy2?": --> 2264:_policy2?": --> 2256:_policy2?": --> 2237: 2203: 2183:_policy2?": --> 2180:_policy2?": --> 2176:_policy2?": --> 2168:_policy2?": --> 2165: 2129: 2089: 1999: 1947: 1898:that we should 1879: 1864: 1861: 1649: 1514: 1117: 1069: 885: 829: 767: 740: 703:Septentrionalis 664:Septentrionalis 652: 649: 623:Septentrionalis 567: 453: 435: 383: 379: 337:Margita Bangová 330:position. The 327: 271: 111: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 8526: 8499: 8496: 8471: 8468: 8467: 8466: 8443: 8442: 8439: 8436: 8433: 8430: 8427: 8395: 8392: 8381: 8378: 8377: 8376: 8349: 8346: 8345: 8344: 8325: 8305:Andrew Lenahan 8299: 8298: 8296:SchmuckyTheCat 8285: 8284: 8243: 8234: 8233: 8232: 8231: 8230: 8229: 8228: 8227: 8226: 8197:Andrew Lenahan 8134:Andrew Lenahan 8120: 8119: 8118: 8117: 8047: 8044: 8043: 8042: 8013: 8010: 8009: 8008: 8007: 8006: 8005: 8004: 8003: 8002: 8001: 8000: 7995:213.209.110.45 7921: 7920: 7919: 7918: 7912: 7911: 7881: 7880: 7879: 7878: 7877: 7876: 7875: 7874: 7873: 7872: 7871: 7870: 7869: 7868: 7829: 7828: 7827: 7826: 7825: 7824: 7823: 7822: 7821: 7820: 7806: 7765: 7752: 7749: 7701: 7698: 7697: 7696: 7661: 7660: 7659: 7658: 7657: 7656: 7655: 7654: 7653: 7652: 7651: 7650: 7649: 7648: 7647: 7646: 7609: 7608: 7607: 7606: 7605: 7604: 7603: 7602: 7601: 7600: 7599: 7598: 7567: 7566: 7565: 7564: 7563: 7562: 7561: 7560: 7538: 7537: 7536: 7535: 7534: 7533: 7532: 7531: 7512: 7511: 7510: 7509: 7508: 7507: 7506: 7505: 7488: 7487: 7486: 7485: 7484: 7483: 7469: 7468: 7467: 7466: 7465: 7464: 7455: 7454: 7453: 7452: 7429: 7428: 7427: 7426: 7418: 7417: 7416: 7415: 7406: 7405: 7401: 7400: 7395: 7394: 7393: 7392: 7370:New York Times 7336:User:Mackensen 7328: 7327: 7315: 7314: 7313: 7294:Dragons flight 7289: 7288: 7287: 7286: 7285: 7284: 7283: 7218: 7217: 7211: 7210: 7199: 7196: 7195: 7194: 7172: 7171: 7161: 7160: 7159: 7158: 7157: 7156: 7091: 7088: 7082:Dragons flight 7062: 7059: 7045: 7044: 7043: 7042: 7027: 7026: 7025: 7018: 7010: 7000: 6999: 6998: 6990: 6980: 6979: 6978: 6970: 6962: 6948: 6947: 6896: 6893: 6868: 6850: 6848: 6847: 6846:as the source. 6844:New York Times 6839:New York Times 6829: 6827: 6826: 6818: 6809:public figures 6804: 6803: 6788: 6785: 6766: 6763: 6762: 6761: 6760: 6759: 6748: 6740: 6695: 6692: 6691: 6690: 6657: 6654: 6653: 6652: 6628: 6625: 6624: 6623: 6622: 6621: 6586: 6585: 6573: 6571: 6570: 6544:Any thoughts? 6528: 6525: 6524: 6523: 6522: 6521: 6511: 6486: 6461: 6460: 6459: 6458: 6457: 6456: 6455: 6408: 6368: 6367: 6366: 6365: 6349: 6348: 6329: 6296: 6281: 6275: 6274: 6273: 6272: 6271: 6270: 6245: 6244: 6243: 6242: 6229: 6228: 6197: 6194: 6193: 6192: 6191: 6190: 6189: 6188: 6135: 6134: 6133: 6132: 6117: 6116: 6106: 6103: 6102: 6101: 6100: 6099: 6098: 6097: 6096: 6095: 6094: 6093: 6083: 6079: 6060: 6047: 6046: 6045: 6044: 6043: 6042: 6041: 6040: 6022: 6002: 6000: 5999: 5998: 5997: 5996: 5995: 5971: 5970: 5969: 5968: 5967: 5966: 5935: 5934: 5933: 5930: 5927: 5916: 5913: 5910: 5907: 5904: 5901: 5898: 5895: 5892: 5889: 5882: 5879: 5803: 5800: 5798: 5796: 5795: 5794: 5793: 5792: 5791: 5790: 5789: 5788: 5787: 5760: 5747: 5746: 5745: 5744: 5743: 5742: 5741: 5740: 5710: 5699: 5688: 5687: 5686: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5672: 5671: 5670: 5656: 5650: 5644: 5633: 5627: 5616:"undue weight" 5612:Crime articles 5601: 5600: 5599: 5598: 5589: 5588: 5587: 5560: 5554: 5548: 5538: 5524: 5517:Crime articles 5507: 5506: 5495: 5494: 5493: 5479: 5469: 5454: 5448: 5433: 5427: 5413: 5403: 5396:Crime articles 5393: 5359:All quotes by 5357: 5356: 5352:George P. Bush 5330: 5316: 5304:starting point 5281: 5277: 5265: 5261:Prince William 5256:Kate Middleton 5252:Princess Diana 5237: 5231: 5224: 5216: 5203: 5200: 5199: 5198: 5165: 5164:Harm is global 5162: 5161: 5160: 5159: 5158: 5157: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5093: 5092: 5063: 5062: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5058: 5057: 5056: 5011: 4987: 4986: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4879: 4865: 4864: 4797: 4794: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4739: 4719:John Callender 4705: 4702: 4684: 4683: 4670: 4643: 4642: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4389: 4367: 4366: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4274: 4273: 4248: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4228: 4227: 4207: 4206: 4189: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4165: 4160: 4155: 4150: 4145: 4128: 4127: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4026: 4025: 4024: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3899: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3590: 3566: 3561: 3543: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3335: 3334: 3319: 3300: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3120: 3119: 3100: 3099: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3063: 3062: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 2973: 2972: 2969: 2966: 2959: 2956: 2953: 2950: 2947: 2944: 2941: 2938: 2935: 2932: 2925: 2914: 2913: 2889: 2888: 2885: 2884:judiciousness? 2882: 2879: 2876: 2873: 2870: 2867: 2864: 2861: 2858: 2857:understanding? 2855: 2852: 2849: 2846: 2822: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2783:Carlossuarez46 2752:Morris the cat 2746: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2727: 2726: 2715: 2714: 2656:Michael Howard 2651: 2648: 2634: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2584: 2583: 2518: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2438: 2437: 2421: 2411: 2406:is hardly an " 2396: 2372:Putting aside 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2326: 2325: 2277: 2274: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2196: 2195: 2164: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2128: 2125: 2088: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2066: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1939: 1938: 1924: 1923: 1905:Spherical Time 1878: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1648: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1609: 1607: 1606: 1598: 1597: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1557: 1546: 1532:revert warring 1513: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1495:George W. Bush 1463:George W. Bush 1442:64.229.202.120 1437:George W. Bush 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1058: 1057: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 931: 930: 929: 928: 907: 906: 905: 904: 900:one lone admin 893: 892: 857: 856: 846: 845: 828: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 797: 796: 775: 774: 739: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 647: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 615: 614: 613: 575: 574: 560:understandable 545: 544: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 434: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 378: 375: 374: 373: 372: 371: 326: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 309:Robert Maxwell 299: 298: 270: 267: 266: 265: 247: 246: 209: 208: 192: 191: 190: 189: 167: 166: 165: 110: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 8525: 8516: 8515: 8512: 8508: 8503: 8495: 8494: 8491: 8487: 8482: 8480: 8477: 8465: 8462: 8458: 8457: 8456: 8455: 8452: 8448: 8440: 8437: 8434: 8431: 8428: 8425: 8424: 8423: 8421: 8420: 8415: 8411: 8406: 8403: 8402: 8391: 8390: 8387: 8380:Cat criminals 8375: 8372: 8371: 8366: 8362: 8361: 8360: 8359: 8356: 8343: 8340: 8339: 8334: 8330: 8326: 8324: 8321: 8306: 8301: 8300: 8297: 8292: 8287: 8286: 8282: 8278: 8277: 8276: 8275: 8272: 8268: 8264: 8259: 8255: 8253: 8249: 8241: 8240: 8225: 8222: 8218: 8217: 8216: 8213: 8198: 8194: 8190: 8186: 8182: 8178: 8173: 8172: 8171: 8168: 8164: 8160: 8155: 8154: 8153: 8150: 8135: 8131: 8127: 8122: 8121: 8116: 8113: 8109: 8108: 8107: 8104: 8103: 8097: 8093: 8089: 8085: 8084:verifiability 8081: 8077: 8076: 8075: 8074: 8071: 8069: 8067: 8061: 8057: 8053: 8041: 8038: 8035: 8030: 8029: 8028: 8027: 8022: 7999: 7996: 7992: 7988: 7987:Werner Franke 7984: 7979: 7974: 7973: 7972: 7969: 7964: 7960: 7959: 7958: 7955: 7950: 7949: 7948: 7945: 7944: 7939: 7938: 7937: 7930: 7925: 7924: 7923: 7922: 7916: 7915: 7914: 7913: 7910: 7907: 7902: 7901: 7900: 7899: 7896: 7895: 7890: 7889: 7888: 7867: 7864: 7860: 7859: 7858: 7855: 7854: 7849: 7848: 7847: 7841: 7840: 7839: 7838: 7837: 7836: 7835: 7834: 7833: 7832: 7831: 7830: 7819: 7816: 7811: 7807: 7805: 7802: 7800: 7791: 7787: 7783: 7782: 7781: 7778: 7774: 7770: 7766: 7764: 7761: 7757: 7753: 7750: 7746: 7745: 7744: 7741: 7736: 7735: 7734: 7731: 7727: 7723: 7722: 7721: 7718: 7714: 7713: 7712: 7711: 7708: 7695: 7692: 7690: 7685: 7681: 7676: 7675: 7674: 7673: 7670: 7667: 7645: 7642: 7638: 7633: 7632: 7631: 7628: 7623: 7622: 7621: 7620: 7619: 7618: 7617: 7616: 7615: 7614: 7613: 7612: 7611: 7610: 7597: 7594: 7591: 7587: 7586: 7585: 7582: 7577: 7576: 7575: 7574: 7573: 7572: 7571: 7570: 7569: 7568: 7559: 7554: 7553:Seraphimblade 7550: 7546: 7545: 7544: 7543: 7542: 7541: 7540: 7539: 7530: 7527: 7524: 7520: 7519: 7518: 7517: 7516: 7515: 7514: 7513: 7504: 7501: 7496: 7495: 7494: 7493: 7492: 7491: 7490: 7489: 7482: 7479: 7475: 7474: 7473: 7472: 7471: 7470: 7461: 7460: 7459: 7458: 7457: 7456: 7451: 7446: 7445:Seraphimblade 7441: 7440: 7439: 7436: 7431: 7430: 7425: 7422: 7421: 7420: 7419: 7414: 7410: 7409: 7408: 7407: 7403: 7402: 7397: 7396: 7391: 7388: 7383: 7379: 7375: 7371: 7367: 7363: 7362: 7361: 7356: 7355:Seraphimblade 7351: 7350: 7349: 7348: 7345: 7341: 7337: 7333: 7326: 7323: 7320: 7316: 7312: 7309: 7305: 7300: 7299: 7298: 7295: 7290: 7282: 7279: 7274: 7273: 7272: 7269: 7265: 7261: 7260: 7259: 7256: 7252: 7248: 7247: 7246: 7243: 7239: 7234: 7233: 7232: 7231: 7228: 7224: 7216: 7213: 7212: 7209: 7205: 7204: 7203: 7202:New version: 7193: 7190: 7186: 7185: 7184: 7183: 7180: 7177: 7170: 7166: 7165: 7164: 7155: 7152: 7148: 7147: 7146: 7143: 7140: 7135: 7134: 7133: 7130: 7126: 7122: 7121: 7120: 7119: 7116: 7113: 7108: 7107: 7104: 7101: 7097: 7087: 7086: 7083: 7078: 7074: 7070: 7068: 7058: 7057: 7054: 7050: 7041: 7038: 7037: 7032: 7028: 7023: 7019: 7016: 7011: 7008: 7004: 7003: 7001: 6996: 6991: 6988: 6984: 6983: 6981: 6976: 6971: 6968: 6963: 6960: 6956: 6955: 6953: 6952: 6950: 6949: 6946: 6943: 6938: 6934: 6929: 6925: 6924: 6923: 6922: 6919: 6913: 6910: 6905: 6900: 6892: 6891: 6888: 6883: 6879: 6867: 6865: 6861: 6857: 6851: 6845: 6841: 6840: 6835: 6832: 6831: 6830: 6824: 6821: 6820: 6819: 6816: 6814: 6810: 6801: 6800: 6799: 6798: 6795: 6784: 6783: 6780: 6775: 6772: 6758: 6755: 6754: 6749: 6746: 6741: 6738: 6734: 6733: 6732: 6727: 6726:Seraphimblade 6722: 6721: 6720: 6719: 6716: 6711: 6707: 6702: 6689: 6686: 6681: 6676: 6672: 6671: 6670: 6666: 6662: 6651: 6648: 6644: 6643: 6642: 6641: 6638: 6634: 6620: 6617: 6612: 6608: 6604: 6600: 6599: 6598: 6595: 6591: 6588: 6587: 6584: 6581: 6576: 6575: 6574: 6569: 6566: 6562: 6557: 6556: 6555: 6554: 6549: 6541: 6537: 6533: 6520: 6517: 6512: 6509: 6505: 6500: 6496: 6491: 6487: 6484: 6480: 6479: 6478: 6475: 6470: 6466: 6462: 6454: 6451: 6446: 6445: 6444: 6441: 6436: 6431: 6427: 6423: 6419: 6418: 6417: 6414: 6409: 6406: 6405: 6404: 6401: 6396: 6392: 6388: 6384: 6380: 6379: 6378: 6377: 6374: 6364: 6361: 6360:Phil Sandifer 6357: 6353: 6352: 6351: 6350: 6347: 6344: 6340: 6335: 6330: 6327: 6323: 6319: 6318: 6317: 6316: 6313: 6308: 6295: 6290: 6280: 6268: 6264: 6260: 6256: 6251: 6250: 6249: 6248: 6247: 6246: 6241: 6238: 6233: 6232: 6231: 6230: 6227: 6224: 6219: 6215: 6210: 6209: 6208: 6207: 6204: 6187: 6184: 6180: 6179: 6178: 6175: 6173: 6163: 6162: 6161: 6158: 6153: 6152: 6151: 6150: 6147: 6145: 6130: 6129: 6124: 6121: 6120: 6119: 6118: 6114: 6109: 6108: 6092: 6089: 6084: 6080: 6077: 6073: 6069: 6065: 6061: 6057: 6056: 6055: 6054: 6053: 6052: 6051: 6050: 6049: 6048: 6039: 6036: 6031: 6027: 6023: 6020: 6015: 6011: 6010: 6009: 6008: 6007: 6006: 6005: 6004: 6003: 5994: 5991: 5987: 5982: 5977: 5976: 5975: 5974: 5973: 5972: 5965: 5962: 5958: 5954: 5950: 5946: 5945: 5944: 5941: 5936: 5931: 5928: 5925: 5921: 5917: 5914: 5911: 5908: 5905: 5902: 5899: 5896: 5893: 5890: 5887: 5883: 5880: 5877: 5876: 5874: 5870: 5869: 5868: 5865: 5860: 5856: 5852: 5848: 5843: 5839: 5838: 5837: 5836: 5833: 5829: 5825: 5821: 5817: 5812: 5807: 5802:Section break 5799: 5786: 5783: 5782: 5777: 5773: 5769: 5765: 5761: 5757: 5756: 5755: 5754: 5753: 5752: 5751: 5750: 5749: 5748: 5739: 5736: 5732: 5728: 5724: 5720: 5716: 5711: 5708: 5704: 5700: 5696: 5695: 5694: 5693: 5692: 5691: 5690: 5689: 5682: 5679: 5678: 5673: 5668: 5664: 5660: 5657: 5654: 5651: 5648: 5645: 5641: 5637: 5634: 5631: 5628: 5625: 5621: 5617: 5613: 5610: 5609: 5607: 5606: 5605: 5604: 5603: 5602: 5597: 5594: 5590: 5585: 5581: 5577: 5573: 5568: 5564: 5561: 5558: 5555: 5552: 5549: 5546: 5542: 5539: 5536: 5532: 5528: 5525: 5522: 5518: 5515: 5514: 5511: 5510: 5509: 5508: 5505: 5502: 5501: 5496: 5491: 5487: 5486:Jeb Bush, Jr. 5483: 5480: 5477: 5473: 5470: 5466: 5462: 5458: 5455: 5452: 5449: 5446: 5441: 5437: 5434: 5431: 5428: 5425: 5421: 5417: 5414: 5411: 5407: 5404: 5401: 5397: 5394: 5390: 5386: 5382: 5379: 5378: 5377:My thoughts: 5376: 5375: 5374: 5373: 5370: 5366: 5362: 5355: 5353: 5349: 5348:Jeb Bush, Jr. 5345: 5341: 5335: 5331: 5329: 5327: 5321: 5317: 5315: 5313: 5309: 5303: 5299: 5294: 5290: 5286: 5282: 5278: 5275: 5270: 5266: 5264: 5262: 5257: 5253: 5249: 5246: 5238: 5236: 5232: 5229: 5225: 5221: 5217: 5213: 5212: 5211: 5209: 5197: 5194: 5189: 5185: 5184: 5183: 5182: 5179: 5177: 5153: 5150: 5149: 5143: 5142: 5141: 5136: 5129: 5128: 5127: 5124: 5120: 5116: 5115: 5114: 5111: 5110: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5098: 5091: 5088: 5087: 5082: 5078: 5074: 5073: 5072: 5071: 5068: 5055: 5052: 5051: 5046: 5045: 5044: 5041: 5037: 5036: 5035: 5034: 5032: 5030: 5028: 5022: 5018: 5012: 5009: 5004: 5003: 5002: 5001: 4998: 4993: 4979: 4976: 4975: 4970: 4969: 4968: 4965: 4961: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4952: 4951: 4946: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4937: 4935: 4925: 4917: 4914: 4913: 4908: 4907: 4906: 4903: 4899: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4890: 4889: 4884: 4880: 4878: 4873: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4863: 4860: 4855: 4854: 4853: 4852: 4849: 4848: 4841: 4838: 4832: 4827: 4824: 4821: 4815: 4811: 4808: 4806: 4801: 4785: 4782: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4772: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4762: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4752: 4748: 4744: 4740: 4738: 4734: 4730: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4720: 4714: 4711: 4701: 4700: 4697: 4695: 4682: 4679: 4675: 4671: 4669: 4666: 4662: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4652: 4648: 4641: 4637: 4633: 4629: 4628: 4609: 4606: 4605: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4566: 4563: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4528: 4525: 4524: 4519: 4515: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4485: 4482: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4456: 4453: 4452: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4428: 4425: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4406: 4403: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4388: 4385: 4378: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4365: 4362: 4358: 4354: 4353: 4346: 4343: 4338: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4329: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4320: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4301: 4297: 4287: 4284: 4283: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4272: 4269: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4257: 4240: 4237: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4226: 4223: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4212: 4205: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4198: 4194: 4181: 4178: 4173: 4169: 4166: 4164: 4161: 4159: 4156: 4154: 4151: 4149: 4146: 4144: 4141: 4140: 4137: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4126: 4123: 4119: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4108: 4081: 4078: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4068: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4058: 4054: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4045: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4020: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4009: 4005: 4002: 3999: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3974: 3971: 3967: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3950: 3945: 3941: 3937: 3936:User:Bus stop 3933: 3932: 3931: 3928: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3913: 3909: 3905: 3873: 3870: 3869: 3864: 3857: 3853: 3849: 3845: 3841: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3832: 3828: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3819: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3798:I agree with 3797: 3796: 3795: 3792: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3782: 3781: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3757: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3747: 3744:sources are. 3742: 3741: 3740: 3737: 3736: 3731: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3686: 3683: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3673: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3664: 3659: 3655: 3652: 3651: 3646: 3642: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3632: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3622: 3621: 3616: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3606: 3600: 3599: 3596: 3592: 3587: 3585: 3580: 3579: 3576: 3572: 3565: 3560: 3559: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3548: 3542:"contentious" 3523: 3520: 3519: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3472: 3469: 3465: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3434: 3431: 3430: 3425: 3420: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3377: 3374: 3373: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3344: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3333: 3330: 3329: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3310: 3306: 3282: 3279: 3278: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3246: 3243: 3238: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3212: 3209: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3187: 3184: 3183: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3163: 3160: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3144: 3141: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3131: 3130: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3118: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3106:schadenfreude 3102: 3101: 3097: 3096: 3091: 3086: 3085:Seraphimblade 3081: 3080: 3079: 3076: 3075: 3070: 3069: 3067: 3060: 3059: 3057: 3053: 3038: 3035: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3005: 3004: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2993: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2975: 2974: 2970: 2967: 2964: 2960: 2957: 2954: 2951: 2948: 2945: 2942: 2939: 2936: 2933: 2929: 2928: 2926: 2923: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2912: 2909: 2904: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2895: 2891: 2890: 2886: 2883: 2880: 2877: 2874: 2871: 2868: 2865: 2862: 2860:impartiality? 2859: 2856: 2853: 2850: 2847: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2838: 2833: 2828: 2812: 2809: 2805: 2804:San Diego Zoo 2801: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2757: 2753: 2738: 2735: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2725: 2722: 2717: 2716: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2664: 2661: 2657: 2647: 2646: 2643: 2639: 2632: 2621: 2618: 2617: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2602: 2599: 2597: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2582: 2579: 2578: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2554: 2552: 2543: 2539: 2534: 2530: 2528: 2524: 2516: 2508: 2505: 2504: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2468: 2463: 2461: 2457: 2449: 2446: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2436: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2422: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2394: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2384: 2379: 2375: 2366: 2363: 2360: 2357: 2354: 2352: 2350: 2348: 2346: 2344: 2341: 2340:Fred Thompson 2337: 2333: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2324: 2321: 2320: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2301: 2296: 2295: 2292: 2286: 2282: 2273: 2266: 2262: 2245: 2240: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2220: 2217: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2206: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2194: 2191: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2178: 2174: 2151: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2134: 2124: 2123: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2105: 2101: 2098: 2094: 2076: 2072: 2067: 2064: 2060: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2041: 2038: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2005: 2002: 1997: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1978: 1975: 1974: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1955: 1950: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1937: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1915: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1906: 1901: 1895: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1872: 1868: 1867: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1845: 1841: 1833: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1813: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1693: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1654: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1617: 1616:71.212.14.220 1613: 1605: 1604:Beneficientor 1600: 1599: 1596: 1593: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1583: 1579: 1577: 1571: 1558: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1540: 1535: 1533: 1527: 1523: 1522: 1518: 1517: 1503: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1487: 1484: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1473: 1472:Seraphimblade 1469: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1447: 1443: 1438: 1414: 1411: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1377: 1373: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1330: 1325: 1324:Seraphimblade 1321: 1320:at this stage 1317: 1316: 1315: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1301:You say "I'm 1300: 1299: 1298: 1293: 1292:Seraphimblade 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1271: 1267: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1257: 1253: 1248: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1231: 1228: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1216: 1215:Seraphimblade 1211: 1210: 1209: 1204: 1203:Seraphimblade 1200: 1199: 1198: 1191: 1187: 1169: 1166: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1123: 1120: 1115: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1075: 1072: 1067: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1056: 1053: 1049: 1044: 1043: 1036: 1033: 1028: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1008: 1005: 1001: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 979: 975: 972: 968: 963: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 945: 942: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 927: 923: 920: 916: 911: 910: 909: 908: 901: 897: 896: 895: 894: 891: 888: 883: 879: 878: 877: 870: 866: 862: 855: 851: 850: 849: 844: 840: 839: 838: 837:The wording: 835: 813: 810: 805: 801: 800: 799: 798: 795: 791: 787: 782: 777: 776: 773: 770: 765: 761: 757: 752: 751: 750: 749: 746: 725: 722: 718: 714: 713: 712: 708: 704: 700: 696: 692: 688: 687: 686: 683: 679: 675: 674: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 656: 655: 654: 646: 632: 628: 624: 620: 616: 610: 609: 607: 603: 602: 601: 598: 594: 590: 589: 587: 586: 585: 582: 577: 576: 573: 570: 565: 561: 557: 553: 549: 548: 547: 546: 543: 540: 536: 524: 520: 517: 513: 508: 507: 506: 503: 499: 495: 494: 493: 490: 486: 483: 482: 481: 478: 474: 470: 469: 468: 465: 461: 460: 459: 456: 451: 447: 446: 445: 444: 441: 426: 422: 418: 414: 413: 412: 409: 405: 404: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 370: 367: 363: 362: 361: 358: 353: 352: 351: 350: 347: 342: 338: 333: 318: 315: 310: 306: 304:From context 303: 302: 301: 300: 297: 294: 290: 289: 288: 287: 284: 280: 276: 264: 261: 257: 253: 249: 248: 245: 242: 238: 233: 229: 228: 227: 226: 223: 220:rationality. 218: 213: 207: 203: 199: 194: 193: 188: 185: 182:Ok thanks. -- 181: 180: 179: 176: 173: 168: 164: 161: 158: 154: 153: 152: 149: 148:Phil Sandifer 145: 142: 141: 140: 139: 136: 132: 128: 124: 119: 117: 116:living person 108: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 8504: 8501: 8483: 8473: 8444: 8418: 8417: 8407: 8400: 8399: 8397: 8383: 8370:Black Falcon 8368: 8351: 8338:Black Falcon 8336: 8332: 8308: 8280: 8266: 8260: 8256: 8245: 8238: 8237: 8200: 8177:Donald Trump 8158: 8137: 8129: 8126:Chris Benoit 8102:Black Falcon 8100: 8065: 8055: 8049: 8015: 7977: 7962: 7954:84.46.10.148 7942: 7935: 7933: 7928: 7893: 7886: 7884: 7882: 7852: 7845: 7843: 7809: 7795: 7789: 7785: 7717:Tony Sidaway 7703: 7688: 7679: 7662: 7627:Tony Sidaway 7581:Tony Sidaway 7548: 7478:Tony Sidaway 7435:Tony Sidaway 7423: 7411: 7332:Talk:Baby 81 7329: 7237: 7227:Tony Sidaway 7222: 7219: 7214: 7206: 7201: 7173: 7167: 7162: 7125:Katie Holmes 7109: 7093: 7079: 7075: 7071: 7064: 7046: 7036:Black Falcon 7034: 7030: 7021: 7013: 7006: 6993: 6986: 6973: 6965: 6958: 6932: 6927: 6914: 6907: 6902: 6898: 6875: 6855: 6852: 6849: 6843: 6837: 6833: 6828: 6822: 6817: 6806: 6790: 6776: 6768: 6753:Black Falcon 6751: 6743: 6697: 6679: 6674: 6667: 6663: 6659: 6633:Dan Jacobson 6630: 6572: 6543: 6538: 6535: 6530: 6503: 6464: 6429: 6425: 6421: 6390: 6386: 6369: 6334:Wendy Carlos 6303: 6292: 6288: 6277: 6258: 6254: 6213: 6199: 6168: 6140: 6136: 6128:Black Falcon 6126: 6122: 6067: 6063: 6029: 6018: 6013: 6001: 5985: 5980: 5948: 5923: 5919: 5885: 5872: 5854: 5827: 5823: 5808: 5805: 5797: 5781:Black Falcon 5779: 5775: 5771: 5767: 5763: 5702: 5677:Black Falcon 5675: 5658: 5652: 5646: 5639: 5635: 5629: 5622:(along with 5611: 5583: 5575: 5571: 5566: 5562: 5556: 5550: 5544: 5540: 5534: 5530: 5526: 5516: 5500:Black Falcon 5498: 5481: 5475: 5471: 5464: 5463:. It should 5461:achievements 5460: 5456: 5450: 5444: 5439: 5435: 5429: 5423: 5415: 5405: 5395: 5380: 5358: 5337: 5325: 5323: 5319: 5305: 5301: 5296: 5292: 5288: 5284: 5273: 5268: 5248:encylopedia. 5242: 5240: 5234: 5227: 5205: 5172: 5167: 5148:Black Falcon 5146: 5118: 5109:Black Falcon 5107: 5094: 5086:Black Falcon 5084: 5080: 5064: 5050:Black Falcon 5048: 5024: 5014: 5007: 4991: 4988: 4974:Black Falcon 4972: 4959: 4950:Black Falcon 4948: 4944: 4930: 4912:Black Falcon 4910: 4897: 4888:Black Falcon 4886: 4882: 4876: 4871: 4847:Black Falcon 4845: 4842: 4836: 4834: 4829: 4825: 4819: 4817: 4813: 4809: 4802: 4799: 4715: 4707: 4690: 4685: 4644: 4604:Black Falcon 4602: 4562:Michael Snow 4523:Black Falcon 4521: 4517: 4513: 4481:Michael Snow 4451:Black Falcon 4449: 4424:Michael Snow 4402:Tony Sidaway 4384:Michael Snow 4377:unreferenced 4361:Tony Sidaway 4356: 4328:Michael Snow 4300:Michael Snow 4292: 4282:Black Falcon 4280: 4268:Tony Sidaway 4250: 4208: 4203: 4191: 4167: 4162: 4157: 4152: 4147: 4142: 4117: 4104: 3961: 3957: 3901: 3859: 3780:Black Falcon 3778: 3764: 3760: 3755: 3735:Black Falcon 3733: 3680:redundant.-- 3650:Black Falcon 3648: 3644: 3640: 3620:Black Falcon 3618: 3601: 3593: 3588: 3581: 3568: 3552: 3551: 3545: 3518:Black Falcon 3516: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3468:Tony Sidaway 3463: 3429:Black Falcon 3427: 3418: 3410:Tony Sidaway 3405: 3401: 3397: 3372:Black Falcon 3370: 3351: 3343:Tony Sidaway 3328:Black Falcon 3326: 3322: 3309:Tony Sidaway 3302: 3277:Black Falcon 3275: 3208:Tony Sidaway 3182:Black Falcon 3180: 3159:Tony Sidaway 3129:Black Falcon 3127: 3114:Tony Sidaway 3105: 3074:Black Falcon 3072: 3065: 3055: 3051: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3003:Black Falcon 3001: 2982: 2921: 2878:sensitivity? 2866:benevolence? 2826: 2824: 2796:Spot Fetcher 2748: 2721:Tony Sidaway 2699:GFDL licence 2666: 2653: 2636: 2616:Black Falcon 2614: 2592: 2577:Black Falcon 2575: 2547: 2537: 2535: 2531: 2520: 2514: 2503:Black Falcon 2501: 2490:undue weight 2478:attributable 2464: 2454: 2427: 2418: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2392: 2371: 2319:Black Falcon 2317: 2297: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2254: 2166: 2133:VoltronForce 2130: 2114: 2110: 2090: 2059:Daniel Pipes 2037:Digitalsabre 1973:Black Falcon 1971: 1967: 1933:Tony Sidaway 1928: 1896: 1880: 1862: 1853:WP:BLP CRIME 1740:Tony Sidaway 1729:Tony Sidaway 1703:Billy Carter 1650: 1611: 1608: 1575: 1573: 1569: 1567: 1538: 1536: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1519: 1499:Tony Sidaway 1458: 1431: 1410:Tony Sidaway 1360: 1319: 1311:Tony Sidaway 1306: 1302: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1269: 1251: 1180: 1165:Tony Sidaway 1092:Tony Sidaway 1052:Tony Sidaway 1047: 1026: 1004:Tony Sidaway 999: 961: 941:Tony Sidaway 899: 865:Tony Sidaway 860: 858: 852: 847: 841: 836: 830: 803: 780: 741: 721:Tony Sidaway 698: 694: 690: 682:Tony Sidaway 678:considerably 677: 659: 644: 618: 597:Tony Sidaway 591: 559: 555: 551: 539:Tony Sidaway 436: 390:83.130.91.47 380: 357:Tony Sidaway 328: 314:Tony Sidaway 278: 272: 260:Tony Sidaway 255: 251: 236: 231: 216: 214: 210: 126: 122: 120: 115: 112: 78: 43: 37: 8189:Charlemagne 8034:violet/riga 7983:user:Severo 7906:84.46.9.158 7863:84.46.9.158 7815:84.46.9.158 7740:84.46.9.158 7707:84.46.9.158 7590:violet/riga 7523:violet/riga 7319:violet/riga 7176:violet/riga 7139:violet/riga 7112:violet/riga 7100:violet/riga 6565:Proabivouac 6019:distortions 5957:Al Gore III 5490:Noelle Bush 5410:WP:NOT#NEWS 5344:Noelle Bush 5295:complicated 4837:and Crum375 4800:Crockspot, 4188:Reiteration 4122:John Carter 4077:John Carter 4057:John Carter 4034:John Carter 3949:John Carter 3589:===Lists=== 3140:John Carter 2963:WP:NOT#SOAP 2854:compassion? 2808:John Carter 2756:John Carter 2515:attack page 2513:What is an 2314:NPOV policy 2115:biographies 1750:Al Gore III 1483:violet/riga 809:John Carter 745:John Carter 612:personally. 384:—Preceding 341:Toronto Sun 172:violet/riga 157:violet/riga 131:WP:MEMORIAL 36:This is an 8461:AnonEMouse 8252:Mark Hucko 8221:AnonEMouse 8090:, and the 8080:neutrality 8020:SlimVirgin 7700:Talk pages 7249:Seconded. 7129:AnonEMouse 7031:explicitly 6792:article?-- 6580:Carcharoth 6547:SlimVirgin 6183:Carcharoth 6157:Carcharoth 6113:Carcharoth 6088:Carcharoth 6035:Robert K S 5990:Carcharoth 5961:Carcharoth 5940:Robert K S 5938:included. 5864:Carcharoth 5832:Robert K S 5811:Carcharoth 5735:Carcharoth 5707:sub judice 5659:Disclaimer 5593:Carcharoth 5563:Disclaimer 5521:sub judice 5482:Case study 5472:Disclaimer 5369:Carcharoth 5287:incomplete 5269:everything 5220:sub judice 5134:SlimVirgin 4820:no mention 4781:Carcharoth 4761:Carcharoth 4743:WP:POVFORK 4255:SlimVirgin 4236:Hornplease 3844:Britannica 3765:Categories 3730:verifiable 2851:propriety? 2821:Adjectives 2568:notability 2238:SlimVirgin 2204:SlimVirgin 2075:Hornplease 1948:SlimVirgin 1365:JamesMLane 967:JamesMLane 915:JamesMLane 707:PMAnderson 699:would like 668:PMAnderson 627:PMAnderson 512:JamesMLane 366:Psychonaut 293:Carcharoth 283:Carcharoth 217:especially 98:Archive 15 90:Archive 12 85:Archive 11 79:Archive 10 8490:NYScholar 8476:NYScholar 8438:confusion 8263:WP:LIVING 8236:When the 8167:Crockspot 8112:Crockspot 7968:Nil Einne 7777:Isotope23 7730:Isotope23 7666:Mackensen 7500:Ned Scott 7344:Ned Scott 7308:Nil Einne 7278:Ned Scott 7268:Nil Einne 7242:Ned Scott 7189:Ned Scott 7151:Ned Scott 7096:Amy Smart 6975:details). 6967:material. 6928:consensus 6594:Ned Scott 6387:guideline 5698:weakness. 5468:coverage. 5342:to which 5097:Crockspot 5067:Crockspot 5040:Crockspot 4997:Crockspot 4964:Crockspot 4872:corrected 4807:change. 4747:≈ jossi ≈ 4729:≈ jossi ≈ 4678:Crockspot 4672:See also 4665:Crockspot 4651:Crockspot 4632:≈ jossi ≈ 4514:potential 4296:emphasize 4008:WAS 4.250 3940:Bob Dylan 3631:Crockspot 3605:Crockspot 3112:to me. -- 2931:impartial 2875:justness? 2845:fairness? 2672:SqueakBox 2660:Owlperson 2456:Plantocal 2432:Plantocal 2374:Plantocal 2362:Plantocal 2261:WAS 4.250 2107:talk page 1929:certainly 1799:WP:PSEUDO 1787:WP:PSEUDO 1769:Night Gyr 1707:Night Gyr 1629:Night Gyr 1582:Ned Scott 1521:Rationale 1512:Rationale 1279:different 1256:WAS 4.250 1186:Ned Scott 1032:WAS 4.250 1027:must have 804:seemingly 786:≈ jossi ≈ 477:Ned Scott 471:Yes, per 241:Aquillion 73:Archive 9 68:Archive 8 60:Archive 5 8511:Wikidemo 8441:cheating 8429:delusion 8401:anyone's 7810:enforced 7760:Jaysweet 7413:context. 7208:context. 7015:article. 6813:reliable 6715:Rawboard 6647:Jaysweet 6516:Jaysweet 6450:Jaysweet 6413:Jaysweet 6343:Jaysweet 5674:Cheers, 5643:editing. 5640:the best 5567:unsuited 5497:Cheers, 5334:Jeb Bush 5274:that way 4898:on sight 4211:Tyrenius 4107:Tyrenius 4067:Tyrenius 4044:Tyrenius 4019:Tyrenius 4003:"Saved" 3970:Tyrenius 3912:Tyrenius 3852:Drumpler 3831:Drumpler 3829:anyway. 3818:Tyrenius 3808:Drumpler 3746:Drumpler 3672:Tyrenius 3595:Tyrenius 3575:Tyrenius 3424:WP:BLOCK 2887:measure? 2869:decency? 2848:decorum? 2768:... :-) 2734:Tyrenius 2467:Sbowers3 2445:Sbowers3 2383:Sbowers3 2356:Sbowers3 2332:Sbowers3 2310:reliable 2300:Sbowers3 2291:Sbowers3 2160:policy2? 2119:Blaxthos 2100:inserted 2095:has now 1865:Jreferee 1461:deleted 1048:faux-pas 854:article. 843:article. 552:explicit 473:WP:CREEP 408:Jaysweet 398:contribs 386:unsigned 346:Chicaneo 144:WP:WOTTA 107:WP:BLP1E 8435:mistake 8355:Bacrito 8329:notable 8193:Imhotep 8066:≡ЅiREX≡ 7929:even if 7637:Viridae 7251:Viridae 7090:Parents 7049:Viridae 6878:WP:NPOV 6834:Example 6823:Example 6637:Jidanni 6426:private 6422:privacy 6373:Sonjaaa 6237:Sonjaaa 6203:Sonjaaa 6014:Absurd. 5981:editors 5816:WP:NPOV 5719:WP:NPOV 5389:WP:NPOV 5322:context 5123:Crum375 4902:Crum375 4859:Crum375 4177:C.Logan 3800:C.Logan 3791:C.Logan 3769:C.Logan 3682:C.Logan 3663:C.Logan 3641:actions 3356:Amarkov 3354:that. - 2922:neutral 2827:discuss 2638:WP:HARM 2631:WP:HARM 1888:Quatloo 1849:WT:HARM 1844:WP:BLPN 1825:WT:HARM 1821:WP:HARM 1812:Kaldari 1758:Kaldari 1754:Al Gore 1692:Kaldari 1677:Amarkov 1666:Kaldari 1592:Rebecca 1247:Crum375 1227:Crum375 1000:adamant 498:Viridae 417:Amarkov 222:Rebecca 39:archive 8447:WP:BLP 8419:reason 8414:WP:POV 8086:, and 8060:WP:BLP 7936:Fyslee 7887:Fyslee 7846:Fyslee 7786:wanted 7769:WP:BLP 7756:WP:IAR 7726:WP:BLP 7669:(talk) 7376:, the 7368:, the 7238:at all 6871:WP:BLP 6794:Kylohk 6710:fergie 6605:, not 6590:WP:COI 6499:WP:NOT 6391:policy 6356:WP:NOT 6339:WP:BLP 6326:WP:BLP 6259:likely 5859:WP:NOT 5851:WP:NOT 5842:WP:NOT 5731:WP:BLP 5723:WP:BLP 5715:WP:NOT 5584:proper 5576:Solely 4771:Jmh123 4751:(talk) 4733:(talk) 4636:(talk) 3938:, not 3804:WP:BLP 3061:or ... 3015:-: --> 2800:Su Lin 2792:Moonie 2770:Walton 2642:Walton 2542:WP:BLP 2527:WP:BLP 2460:WP:BLP 2378:WP:BLP 2143:WP:AFD 2093:editor 1968:at all 1918:Jmh123 1829:Walton 1805:, and 1791:Walton 1287:really 861:obtain 790:(talk) 556:simple 232:spirit 198:bainer 8451:Filll 8426:lying 8410:WP:OR 8267:allow 8265:even 7927:used 7689:juice 7684:Mango 6933:point 6779:Mhkay 6508:WP:RS 6495:WP:RS 6490:WP:RS 6430:seems 6322:WP:RS 6289:and 6255:might 6214:might 5727:WP:RS 5624:WP:RS 5572:guide 5545:first 5300:never 5223:case. 4945:where 4831:(UTC) 4357:first 3898:Dylan 3840:Hindu 2704:Arwel 2338:from 2173:Allen 2147:Bduke 2097:twice 2071:SWAPO 1884:WP:RS 1625:Alexa 1468:point 1283:whole 691:these 581:Cla68 475:. -- 184:Breno 135:Breno 16:< 8507:here 8386:Geni 8239:only 8191:and 8187:and 7943:talk 7894:talk 7853:talk 7798:OGER 7758:. -- 7680:when 7382:Wily 7340:here 6937:Wily 6882:Wily 6701:6abc 6675:have 6611:Wily 6497:and 6469:Wily 6435:Wily 6395:Wily 6307:Wily 6218:Wily 6171:OGER 6143:OGER 6026:WP:V 5924:etc. 5920:e.g. 5886:e.g. 5873:i.e. 5847:WP:V 5820:WP:V 5759:law. 5725:and 5400:WP:V 5387:and 5385:WP:V 5188:Wily 5175:OGER 5077:this 4933:OGER 4883:only 4805:this 4693:OGER 4676:. - 4663:. - 4337:Wily 4314:Wily 4222:JJay 3966:here 3927:JJay 3862:Baka 3848:WP:V 3827:NPOV 3706:and 3406:must 3402:this 3398:last 3360:moo! 3307:. -- 3237:Wily 3029:Wily 2987:Wily 2983:will 2903:Wily 2832:Wily 2708:talk 2595:OGER 2564:this 2550:OGER 2336:this 2216:Geni 2190:Geni 1996:Wily 1785:See 1773:talk 1727:. -- 1711:talk 1681:moo! 1662:WP:N 1633:talk 1275:same 1114:Wily 1086:See 1066:Wily 882:Wily 764:Wily 695:like 564:Wily 558:and 450:Wily 421:moo! 394:talk 252:only 237:fast 202:talk 8509:. 8333:how 8316:bli 8208:bli 8145:bli 8037:(t) 7963:few 7593:(t) 7549:are 7526:(t) 7366:BBC 7322:(t) 7223:can 7179:(t) 7142:(t) 7115:(t) 7103:(t) 6918:Ben 6856:may 6750:-- 6685:Deb 6680:not 5855:all 5703:not 5535:not 5476:All 5465:not 5440:not 5424:not 5336:): 5119:not 5081:all 5008:any 4992:all 3867:man 3856:gay 3761:can 3513:can 3325:-- 3071:-- 2894:Tom 2496:(a 2480:to 2430:." 2091:An 1570:why 1486:(t) 1459:had 1303:not 1270:not 962:one 781:may 489:CLA 464:CLA 440:CLA 175:(t) 160:(t) 8481:] 8319:nd 8313:ar 8310:St 8307:- 8211:nd 8205:ar 8202:St 8199:- 8148:nd 8142:ar 8139:St 8136:- 8082:, 7978:is 7790:is 7433:-- 7372:, 7334:. 6869:— 6563:?) 6514:-- 6297:— 6282:— 6165:-- 5986:my 5770:, 5721:, 5717:, 5474:– 5328:." 5276:." 4962:- 4927:-- 4745:. 4560:-- 4422:-- 4400:-- 4380:}} 4374:{{ 4199:: 4148:n. 4118:as 3925:-- 3756:be 3645:no 3586:: 3509:no 3419:is 3352:do 3023:? 2750:(" 2710:) 2395:." 2171:-- 1827:. 1801:, 1779:) 1777:Oy 1717:) 1715:Oy 1705:. 1639:) 1637:Oy 939:-- 648:— 608:: 595:-- 487:. 400:) 396:• 355:-- 277:: 204:) 146:? 94:→ 64:← 7940:/ 7891:/ 7850:/ 7796:R 7386:D 6941:D 6886:D 6866:. 6739:: 6615:D 6473:D 6439:D 6399:D 6311:D 6222:D 6169:R 6141:R 5926:) 5492:. 5230:. 5192:D 5173:R 5029:. 4931:R 4691:R 4341:D 4318:D 3714:. 3241:D 3033:D 2991:D 2907:D 2836:D 2706:( 2593:R 2548:R 2517:? 2000:D 1775:/ 1771:( 1713:/ 1709:( 1675:- 1635:/ 1631:( 1610:" 1372:c 1369:t 1250:" 1118:D 1070:D 974:c 971:t 922:c 919:t 886:D 768:D 568:D 519:c 516:t 454:D 392:( 200:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 10 - Knowledge

Index