On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:00:58 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
If you want to
propose being equally "ruthless" for fictional characters I want to see
a reason that's just as strong.
Sure. They are the number one source of original research, banned by
policy, and these articles have misled countless editors into
believing that (a) "I read it on teh internets" is adequate sourcing
and (b) we should tailor policy on verifiability, original research
and neutrality to ensure that these articles are not impacted.
All of which is already covered by the same policies policy in both
fictional character and living-person-biography. The only thing that BLP
does is make the enforcement of our original research and verification
policies more _urgent_ on living-person-biography articles, it doesn't
put any additional constraints on the material that can be found within.
If you look into the debates on these policies you will see that for
popular culture articles there is a large body of opinion which holds
that if there are no reliable sources for an article then we should
allow, by policy, the use of whatever sources we can find, reliable or
not.
The articles are held to the same content standards
already, it's the
urgency in applying those standards that I'm questioning here. Why is it
just as urgent to deal with OR on fictional character articles as it is
to deal with OR on living person articles?
I disagree that they are held to the same standards. I can find you a
treeware biography of Leonard Cheshire, I cannot find a treeware
biography of Garfield. I know which is the more significant, by any
rational definition. Guess which gets the most coverage?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG