On 8/18/06, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)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