On 7/11/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As for the removal from the article, please note the
at WP:PSEUDO calling for the removal of even soundly sourced negative
material from bio articles if the person is not thought important
Hmm that seems to redirect to "avoiding harm", which reminds me be
very careful when shaving my nether-regions or eating dinner with a
Back on topic, let's assume briefly and for the sake of argument that
"notability" (or lack of it) is actionable on its own (which it isn't,
but this is the Land of Make-Believe, so close your eyes and just
Facts, assuming they are <s>true</s> supported by reliable sources,
cannot be positive or negative, only informative. Regardless of the
information provided by your sources, a talented writer can make the
final product sound positive, or negative, or somewhere in between.
Articles generally begin as a mixed bag and other editors come along
and make minor adjustments, smoothing out the peaks and valleys in the
prose being used to express these facts, until eventually we end up
with something that pleases and/or upsets everyone equally.
Notability, ok. Let's suppose that the relevance of certain
information is disputed or just not very apparent. It might even be
deemed "not notable enough" to mention. This has nothing to do with
whether it's "positive information" or "negative information",
on closer inspection, one sees that these labels don't really exist.
Either it's verifiable or it's not, and it's either relevant to the
article or it's not.
Notability, ok. If that card is to be played it needs to be played
fairly and sanity-checking is an absolute must. This assumes that
there is anyone still willing to do something other than smile and nod
whenever a question related to serious decision-making on Wikipedia is
asked. Could I get a show of hands by any chance?
Notability, ok. Your friends say "go for it", not that they paid
attention to the question. I can't stress this enough. There is no
such thing as "being notable enough for Wikipedia to have a positive
article, but not a negative one" because all articles are supposed to
be written neutrally. Notability, even in its broadest formulation,
does not affect our most basic polices, one of which states that **all
articles** are supposed to be written neutrally.
It does not say "due to our disproportionate focus on BLP issues,
articles about dead people are now, in practice, given more leeway".
It does not say "articles about people (living or dead) who are less
notable/important than others should be written more favorably to the
subject". And it does not say "information may be added or removed
based on the notability of the article's subject, rather than the
verifiability and relevance of the content."
A subject wishing to "opt out" is one thing, and controversial in its own
A subject wishing to "opt halfway out" or to say "you can print an
article, but only if you include this and exclude that" is, in my
opinion, completely unacceptable. We are an encyclopedia, not a public
relations firm (or as one of our finest editors suggested on his way
out the door, a charity case).
How are we going to objectively determine whether one subject is more
notable or less notable than another? If they are part of the same
field of study, it might be feasible, but in the general case you
might as well be comparing Lou Gehrig to Seattle Slew.
(stalemate, one triple crown each)