"Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" wrote
> For context, your statement as quoted was: "The point of WP:BLP is (or
> should be) that our fundamental content rules NPOV, NOR, V are all that's
> needed - but we need to apply them very harshly and we really can't be
> eventualist about bad info in living bios."
>
> What about the advances we've made over the past two years in agreeing that
> the well-being of article subjects is also a legitimate consideration. In
> Wikipedia jargon, I could simply say that "you left Notability off your
> list." But it's a deeper sense of respect for our obligations, as reflected
> in such places as [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff]] and
> [[/Footnoted quotes]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc
> glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ
> Deletion dispute#Outside view by Newyorkbrad]]; the DRV log for May 28, 2007
> (Hornbeck/Ownby); and the Shawn Hornbeck thread currently on ANI.
>
> There is plenty of accurate, neutral, fully sourceable material about living
> persons that still has no place in Wikipedia. Or anywhere else on the
> Internet, really, but we can only control our own site.
OK, one of the problems here is that people assume "notability" can be elided somehow (I have never assented to the idea that "reliable sources" says it all about notability). Another is that we haven't properly got to the "salience" issue, and again verifiability from reliable sources fails to do enough. I would claim that nitpicking material about someone notable can still be too much for neutrality. And even if not, ther is no need for negatives to be accumulated - a propagandist's trick, in fact. (This is roughly the argument I developed in the "defamation timebomb" thread on my User talk.) Or more accurately, perhaps, if negative fact F can be removed from biography B, while not affecting neutrality, why should it not be removed?
The onus here is on understanding NPOV better. Biographies should _not_ be whitewashed. But that doesn't mean that every negative fact should be included. As I said, my reading of BLP is to do with being "scrupulous".
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
In a message dated 10/1/2008 1:38:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
Also add "It's an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism - we have
Wikinews for that."
----------
But also add that Wikinews is for "News". Where do we put "Olds" ?
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 9/30/2008 3:00:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net writes:
To focus only on the resultant behaviors, without understanding the
condition, is pejorative journalism, and unfair to the person who is the
subject of that article.>>
------------------------------------
Giving a paragraph to describe "alcoholism" in every article which mentions
it, would be undue weight.
Better to simply add a link to our article on that topic.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
Ad Hominem attacks only make you appear desperate. Is that the impression
you're trying to convey?
In a message dated 10/1/2008 6:35:32 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
szilagyi(a)gmail.com writes:
I suspect the viewpoints you have for your own "warts and all" biographies
you do on your own website have no bearing on how we treat BLPs on
Wikipedia. Stop trying to import your own lax or harmful standards here.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 9/30/2008 8:06:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
Is it relevant to his general notability and significance as a topic?
-------------------
If *each* statement in a bio has to be, then we should never state when a
person was born or where, since those are not notable nor significant. In fact
80 to 95 percent of what we have in bios now is not particularly notable or
significant. But it's standard to cite those.
I'd say that front-page scandals are notable and significant, no matter how
old they are or who they address.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 9/30/2008 7:52:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nawrich(a)gmail.com writes:
Our biographies of living people, folks with families and careers,
can become the major reference on their lives - so our vigilance on these
articles is of extreme real world importance. This event is a very good
example of that principle.>>
----------------------
Not following your point.
If there are reliable sources stating that "After an all-night drinking
binge he paraded nude through St Mary's Convent startling the sisters at Mass"
Then it should be in his article right?
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
But Nathan, as you quite well know :)
Having brown eyes isn't particularly notable.
Driving your Jeep through the plate-glass front-window of Bergdorff's is.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)