On 8/18/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
like NPOV, V, and NOR. There was also an ArbCom ruling that material of that nature should be removed from a talk page, and I'm speaking
Ok, in that case that should be part of a more general policy. I removed the reference to talk pages from template:blp because it's specifically designed for talk pages of living people articles. Whereas, defaming people is apparently out on all talk pages...
Though for that matter, defaming living people on articles about extinct frogs is just as bad, but we don't put the template on those talk pages. Hmm.
There are lots of ways material can be discussed with[out] directly referring to it, and people can ask for a reliable source for all edits without specifying the particular edit that's caused the problem. We don't need to say: "Do you have a source for the claim that Professor Sir John Doe was seen with a woman not his wife in a nightclub last night?"
Ouch. I don't like it. Can't we just tell google not to spider our talk pages? Would you expect the editors of a "real" encyclopaedia to have to talk in circumspect terms when discussing potentially libellous material? Do Mr and Mrs Britannica say "You know that claim about Mr Smith on page 878...you know...there's allegedly with an apparently non-married female person and a, uh, allegedly drinking establishment...with me?" when they're working on it? No. The solution should never be "don't discuss it", but rather "discuss it in a way which isn't going to spread the defamation".
Steve