-----Original Message----- From: Trebor Rowntree [mailto:trebor.rowntree@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 03:51 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No, at the moment the problem is that people really think you can outvote fundamental content policies.
But where is the fundamental content policy that advocates deletion of _sourced_ articles about individuals famous for negative reasons? I'm not saying it's wrong, but I don't see it in the fundamental content policies.
We are saying Biographies of living persons is a fundamental content policy. It is based more on the danger of publishing with malice than with lack of adequate sourcing.
Fred
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
From: Trebor Rowntree [mailto:trebor.rowntree@gmail.com] But where is the fundamental content policy that advocates deletion of _sourced_ articles about individuals famous for negative reasons? I'm not saying it's wrong, but I don't see it in the fundamental content
policies. We are saying Biographies of living persons is a fundamental content policy. It is based more on the danger of publishing with malice than with lack of adequate sourcing.
Can you point out where in the policy it says that? Reading it, BLP is extremely focused on sourcing and doesn't even touch upon the idea of completely deleting sourced articles on individuals who are negative. There seems to be a gulf between what's written there, and what most people seem to think it is.
On Wed, May 23, 2007 3:04 pm, Trebor Rowntree wrote:
Can you point out where in the policy it says that? Reading it, BLP is extremely focused on sourcing and doesn't even touch upon the idea of completely deleting sourced articles on individuals who are negative. There seems to be a gulf between what's written there, and what most people seem to think it is.
It's not even most. This is a relatively recent idea, and I don't know where it came from, but there's significant doubt in my mind that this bizarre interpretation has any wide support.
-Jeff
On 23/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2007 3:04 pm, Trebor Rowntree wrote:
Can you point out where in the policy it says that? Reading it, BLP is extremely focused on sourcing and doesn't even touch upon the idea of completely deleting sourced articles on individuals who are negative. There seems to be a gulf between what's written there, and what most people seem to think it is.
It's not even most. This is a relatively recent idea, and I don't know where it came from, but there's significant doubt in my mind that this bizarre interpretation has any wide support.
Um, it came from Jimbo declaring it as the right approach here after the Siegenthaler fuckup. Perhaps that was before your time.
- d.
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2007 3:04 pm, Trebor Rowntree wrote:
Can you point out where in the policy it says that? Reading it, BLP is extremely focused on sourcing and doesn't even touch upon the idea of completely deleting sourced articles on individuals who are negative. There seems to be a gulf between what's written there, and what most people
seem
to think it is.
It's not even most. This is a relatively recent idea, and I don't know where it came from, but there's significant doubt in my mind that this bizarre interpretation has any wide support.
Um, it came from Jimbo declaring it as the right approach here after the Siegenthaler fuckup. Perhaps that was before your time.
Sorry, repeating myself here. The lesson from Siegenthaler was to source source source, and delete anything which wasn't. It didn't (and BLP doesn't) say anything about deletion of articles about individuals famous for negative reasons.
On 23/05/07, Trebor Rowntree trebor.rowntree@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, repeating myself here. The lesson from Siegenthaler was to source source source, and delete anything which wasn't. It didn't (and BLP doesn't) say anything about deletion of articles about individuals famous for negative reasons.
The point is that isn't particularly fame. The incident is famous, the person's pretty much only famous in association with the incident. For a local example, there's an article at [[Essjay controversy]] but only a pointer at [[Ryan Jordan]] (which is a disambig).
The Crystal whatsit article is now a redirect to the incident of fame (and I'm fine with that; I zapped it because the single-purpose editors were so rabid about it). But her *grade point averages* sure as hell don't belong in the article. That's what I mean by immaculately sourced attack article. Her GPAs? What on earth?
- d.
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/05/07, Trebor Rowntree trebor.rowntree@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, repeating myself here. The lesson from Siegenthaler was to source source source, and delete anything which wasn't. It didn't (and BLP
doesn't)
say anything about deletion of articles about individuals famous for negative reasons.
The point is that isn't particularly fame. The incident is famous, the person's pretty much only famous in association with the incident. For a local example, there's an article at [[Essjay controversy]] but only a pointer at [[Ryan Jordan]] (which is a disambig).
The Crystal whatsit article is now a redirect to the incident of fame (and I'm fine with that; I zapped it because the single-purpose editors were so rabid about it). But her *grade point averages* sure as hell don't belong in the article. That's what I mean by immaculately sourced attack article. Her GPAs? What on earth?
Yeah, of course. Redirects often seem the best (or least painful) way of handling these articles. But there is a line. [[Seung-Hui Cho]] (or an equivalent living person)
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that isn't particularly fame. The incident is famous, the person's pretty much only famous in association with the incident. For a local example, there's an article at [[Essjay controversy]] but only a pointer at [[Ryan Jordan]] (which is a disambig).
The Crystal whatsit article is now a redirect to the incident of fame (and I'm fine with that; I zapped it because the single-purpose editors were so rabid about it). But her *grade point averages* sure as hell don't belong in the article. That's what I mean by immaculately sourced attack article. Her GPAs? What on earth?
Crap, sorry, computer fouled up. There is a line. Seung-Hui Cho is famous for one incident yet gets a lengthy article filling in details well beyond what he is notable for, for instance. (I know he's dead; there's probably a better example out there.)
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that isn't particularly fame. The incident is famous, the person's pretty much only famous in association with the incident.
Could some argue that based on this [[Monica Lewinsky]] should be deleted?
On 24/05/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that isn't particularly fame. The incident is famous, the person's pretty much only famous in association with the incident.
Could some argue that based on this [[Monica Lewinsky]] should be deleted?
I'm sure they could argue anything they got it into their heads to, particularly for the sake of a querulous argument. And, on Wikipedia, probably have.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 24/05/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that isn't particularly fame. The incident is famous, the person's pretty much only famous in association with the incident.
Could some argue that based on this [[Monica Lewinsky]] should be deleted?
I'm sure they could argue anything they got it into their heads to, particularly for the sake of a querulous argument. And, on Wikipedia, probably have.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Which is exactly why we -shouldn't- give a blanket license stating "Do whatever you want, and you're not subject to community censure or an overturn by consensus, only if someone cares enough to take it to ArbCom -and- manages to get it accepted." At the very least, if the ArbCom is going to set itself up as an arbiter of BLP disputes, it should be -required- to accept any such case (especially if the threat of anyone who acts without ArbCom's blessing is banning or desysopping, in this case, ArbCom effectively sets itself up as the only way the matter -can- be resolved.)
I'm not really sure this is the most efficient way to deal with that. The community deals with a lot of things on its own. Sometimes, we need the ArbCom to sort out a particularly nasty mess. More often, consensus swings pretty clearly one way or the other. Taking an -entire class- of articles out of the hands of the community (and don't be fooled, if this does become policy, any edits to BLP's will depend on who first yells "It's a BLP issue!" and becomes immune to reversal until the ArbCom can get around to saying it's not) is a major shift in policy, practice, and basic philosophy, and I think (with all due respect) that such a shift requires more than Fred Bauder saying "I said it's so, now deal with it."
On 5/23/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that isn't particularly fame. The incident is famous, the person's pretty much only famous in association with the incident.
Could some argue that based on this [[Monica Lewinsky]] should be deleted?
Monica Lewinsky embraced her notoriety to the point of writing an autobiography, as I recall. That does make a difference.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 5/23/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that isn't particularly fame. The incident is famous, the person's pretty much only famous in association with the incident.
Could some argue that based on this [[Monica Lewinsky]] should be deleted?
Monica Lewinsky embraced her notoriety to the point of writing an autobiography, as I recall. That does make a difference.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
So what about the current situation, in which the subject has stated intent to capitalize on his notoriety, and consented to several media interviews?
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 5/23/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that isn't particularly fame. The incident is famous, the person's pretty much only famous in association with the incident.
Could some argue that based on this [[Monica Lewinsky]] should be deleted?
Monica Lewinsky embraced her notoriety to the point of writing an autobiography, as I recall. That does make a difference.
That would certainly reinforce the point in the specific case of Lewinsky. Writing an autobiograohy would clearly enhance a person's notability. Ultimately it's about individuals and individual circumstances. The decision needs to be made on a one-by-one basis.
This does not solve the problem for the general class of people that Lewinsky symbolizes. But for one act she might have remained as faceless as any other Washington intern. The act that brought her fame does not appear to be illegal, though it may be in other jurisdictions. Far from seeing it as a black mark on her biography, it is also imaginable that some would look upon her in awe, wishing that they had had a similar opportunity to project themselves into history.
In one community a person who is convicted of drunk driving baely rates one column inch in the local newspaper. In a similaly sized neighboring community a driver in similar circumtances becomes a 'cause célèbre'. Because of this single incident town B develops a national reputation for being unsafe. It all comes down to a good judgement, and no rules are efective in bringing that about.
Ec
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that isn't particularly fame. The incident is famous, the person's pretty much only famous in association with the incident.
Could some argue that based on this [[Monica Lewinsky]] should be deleted?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This is based on a real case (names changed to protect the innocent)
The point for me is that an article on [[Jane H. Smith]] should indicate a little about the life of John Smith. It's a biography. An article on Jane that only includes information about her being a baby that was switched at birth isn't a biography - it is a news report or an article on an incident - and no more.
Whilst the 'switched at birth' story may have reached the newspapers, it is unfair to have a biography on her. Newspapers are forgot 16 years later - only careful research with retrieve the story. On the other hand, a Wikipedia article will google and any potential employer, boyfriend, student in the school she is teaching at 24 years later - will have that information shoved in their face if they check her out.
The differences between Smith and Lewinsky are this. 1) Lewinsky has no privacy for us to protect - anyone checking her out can get all the details anywhere. 2) And this is important - although Smith and Lewinsky are only notable for one thing - the fact that Lewinsky's life has been so public means we can write a full balanced biography for her. He bio want say "she sucked Clinton's cock" it will say something about her background, career, life after the incident - in short we get the whole person. One incident yes - but that's given us enough sources to write the biography. We have no sources to write a biography on Smith (and if we find out any more it is likely to be OR) - only to record an incident. That's not a biography.
So, with Smith, if the incident is notable - then we write the incident up, (in this case I doubt it is in any sense notable) - but we don't have a biography, because WE CANNOT WRITE A BIOGRAPHY, and certainly not one compliant with our policies.
Doc
The point for me is that an article on [[Jane H. Smith]] should indicate a little about the life of John Smith. It's a biography. An article on Jane that only includes information about her being a baby that was switched at birth isn't a biography - it is a news report or an article on an incident - and no more.
That should read 'Jane' throughout
On 5/24/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
- And this is important - although Smith and Lewinsky
are only notable for one thing - the fact that Lewinsky's life has been so public means we can write a full balanced biography for her. He bio want say "she sucked Clinton's cock" it will say something about her background, career, life after the incident - in short we get the whole person. One incident yes - but that's given us enough sources to write the biography. We have no sources to write a biography on Smith (and if we find out any more it is likely to be OR) - only to record an incident. That's not a biography.
But in cases like these (for private individuals), BLP actually says to include "*only* material relevant to their notability." As David Gerard said, including things like someone's GPA is absurd and unnecessary f that has no relevance to that person's fame. But aiming to write a full balanced biography directly opposes including only material relevant to notability. Which are we supposed to be doing?
Trebor Rowntree wrote:
On 5/24/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
- And this is important - although Smith and Lewinsky
are only notable for one thing - the fact that Lewinsky's life has been so public means we can write a full balanced biography for her. He bio want say "she sucked Clinton's cock" it will say something about her background, career, life after the incident - in short we get the whole person. One incident yes - but that's given us enough sources to write the biography. We have no sources to write a biography on Smith (and if we find out any more it is likely to be OR) - only to record an incident. That's not a biography.
But in cases like these (for private individuals), BLP actually says to include "*only* material relevant to their notability." As David Gerard said, including things like someone's GPA is absurd and unnecessary f that has no relevance to that person's fame. But aiming to write a full balanced biography directly opposes including only material relevant to notability. Which are we supposed to be doing? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Monica's whole life is notable - there are basted biographies on her. There may be 'the incident' but the incident has made her whole life a notable, sources and verifiable story. We can write a biography. The same is true for the Olympic medal winner - notable only for winning medals, but because of that, a lot of biographical details that are otherwise notable, are already recorded in good sources.
But if the notability refers only to the incident and nothing else has really been recorded by good sources - then all we can write about is the incident - then we can't write a biography.
A good thing to ask yourself is: if this person died tomorrow, would any newspaper, or important publication in the subject area, print an obituary. If the answer is 'No - no chance' then we probably should not have a biography.
doc wrote:
Trebor Rowntree wrote:
On 5/24/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
- And this is important - although Smith and Lewinsky
are only notable for one thing - the fact that Lewinsky's life has been so public means we can write a full balanced biography for her. He bio want say "she sucked Clinton's cock" it will say something about her background, career, life after the incident - in short we get the whole person. One incident yes - but that's given us enough sources to write the biography. We have no sources to write a biography on Smith (and if we find out any more it is likely to be OR) - only to record an incident. That's not a biography.
But in cases like these (for private individuals), BLP actually says to include "*only* material relevant to their notability." As David Gerard said, including things like someone's GPA is absurd and unnecessary f that has no relevance to that person's fame. But aiming to write a full balanced biography directly opposes including only material relevant to notability. Which are we supposed to be doing? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Monica's whole life is notable - there are basted biographies on her. There may be 'the incident' but the incident has made her whole life a notable, sources and verifiable story. We can write a biography. The same is true for the Olympic medal winner - notable only for winning medals, but because of that, a lot of biographical details that are otherwise notable, are already recorded in good sources.
But if the notability refers only to the incident and nothing else has really been recorded by good sources - then all we can write about is the incident - then we can't write a biography.
A good thing to ask yourself is: if this person died tomorrow, would any newspaper, or important publication in the subject area, print an obituary. If the answer is 'No - no chance' then we probably should not have a biography.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm not sure that's a very good way to do it. Newspapers will print an obituary of damn near anyone.
Todd Allen wrote:
doc wrote:
Trebor Rowntree wrote:
On 5/24/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
- And this is important - although Smith and Lewinsky
are only notable for one thing - the fact that Lewinsky's life has been so public means we can write a full balanced biography for her. He bio want say "she sucked Clinton's cock" it will say something about her background, career, life after the incident - in short we get the whole person. One incident yes - but that's given us enough sources to write the biography. We have no sources to write a biography on Smith (and if we find out any more it is likely to be OR) - only to record an incident. That's not a biography.
But in cases like these (for private individuals), BLP actually says to include "*only* material relevant to their notability." As David Gerard said, including things like someone's GPA is absurd and unnecessary f that has no relevance to that person's fame. But aiming to write a full balanced biography directly opposes including only material relevant to notability. Which are we supposed to be doing? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Monica's whole life is notable - there are basted biographies on her. There may be 'the incident' but the incident has made her whole life a notable, sources and verifiable story. We can write a biography. The same is true for the Olympic medal winner - notable only for winning medals, but because of that, a lot of biographical details that are otherwise notable, are already recorded in good sources.
But if the notability refers only to the incident and nothing else has really been recorded by good sources - then all we can write about is the incident - then we can't write a biography.
A good thing to ask yourself is: if this person died tomorrow, would any newspaper, or important publication in the subject area, print an obituary. If the answer is 'No - no chance' then we probably should not have a biography.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm not sure that's a very good way to do it. Newspapers will print an obituary of damn near anyone.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I didn't say if they would have a biography - we should have a bio. But if they wouldn't, we certainly shouldn't.
Twins switched a birth won't have an obituary 80 years later. And I'd seriously doubt Brian P would either. Serious newspapers anyway.
On 24/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that's a very good way to do it. Newspapers will print an obituary of damn near anyone.
If Crystal dies in five years, will she get an obituary? Not based just on what we have to write a bio with at present.
- d.
On 5/24/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Monica's whole life is notable - there are basted biographies on her. There may be 'the incident' but the incident has made her whole life a notable, sources and verifiable story. We can write a biography. The same is true for the Olympic medal winner - notable only for winning medals, but because of that, a lot of biographical details that are otherwise notable, are already recorded in good sources.
But if the notability refers only to the incident and nothing else has really been recorded by good sources - then all we can write about is the incident - then we can't write a biography.
A good thing to ask yourself is: if this person died tomorrow, would any newspaper, or important publication in the subject area, print an obituary. If the answer is 'No - no chance' then we probably should not have a biography.
Yeah, alright, but then this isn't as black-and-white as some people seem to think it is. [[Crystal Gail Mangum]] did have other details (like her GPA), but in that case the right thing seemed to be to redirect to the incident. So up to a certain level of "fame" for one incident, we want to include only things related to that incident (and possibly redirect the biography to it); once a person passes that level, we want to include as much background information as possible to try to balance the biography. But where we put the level is a subjective decision.
On 5/23/07, Trebor Rowntree trebor.rowntree@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2007 3:04 pm, Trebor Rowntree wrote:
Can you point out where in the policy it says that? Reading it, BLP is extremely focused on sourcing and doesn't even touch upon the idea of completely deleting sourced articles on individuals who are negative. There seems to be a gulf between what's written there, and what most people
seem
to think it is.
It's not even most. This is a relatively recent idea, and I don't know where it came from, but there's significant doubt in my mind that this bizarre interpretation has any wide support.
Um, it came from Jimbo declaring it as the right approach here after the Siegenthaler fuckup. Perhaps that was before your time.
Sorry, repeating myself here. The lesson from Siegenthaler was to source source source, and delete anything which wasn't. It didn't (and BLP doesn't) say anything about deletion of articles about individuals famous for negative reasons.
Seconded; If this was supposed to be part of the policy, it should have been written down in the policy.
It wasn't; this is confusing to me and others. My expectations were set by the written policy, and what I see people doing in practice, which are contrary to the policy as asserted here.
If the policy as intended differs from the policy as written down, or as enforced, please someone in a position of responsibility and respect make a change to WP:BLP and announce it widely so that everyone knows.
And, undoubtedly, be prepared to hunker down in a bunker in a flame-proof suit for a day or two...
On Wed, May 23, 2007 3:14 pm, David Gerard wrote:
Um, it came from Jimbo declaring it as the right approach here after the Siegenthaler fuckup. Perhaps that was before your time.
Well, no, I was around for that. I don't recall "nuke from orbit" being part of the discussion, and for good reason.
-Jeff
On 23/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2007 3:14 pm, David Gerard wrote:
Um, it came from Jimbo declaring it as the right approach here after the Siegenthaler fuckup. Perhaps that was before your time.
Well, no, I was around for that. I don't recall "nuke from orbit" being part of the discussion, and for good reason.
I remember it being indeed part of the discussion, and certainly that concept if not those words.
- d.
On Wed, May 23, 2007 3:38 pm, David Gerard wrote:
On 23/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2007 3:14 pm, David Gerard wrote:
Um, it came from Jimbo declaring it as the right approach here after the Siegenthaler fuckup. Perhaps that was before your time.
Well, no, I was around for that. I don't recall "nuke from orbit" being part of the discussion, and for good reason.
I remember it being indeed part of the discussion, and certainly that concept if not those words.
Excuse me - a serious part of the discussion. May as well hedge myself since we're playing games lately.
And no, because if it were, it would be part of the policy we rushed into. It's most notably *not*.
-Jeff
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2007 3:14 pm, David Gerard wrote:
Um, it came from Jimbo declaring it as the right approach here after the Siegenthaler fuckup. Perhaps that was before your time.
Well, no, I was around for that. I don't recall "nuke from orbit" being part of the discussion, and for good reason.
I remember it being indeed part of the discussion, and certainly that concept if not those words.
This is the danger in "community knowledge" policy.
We have 20x as many users, several times as many admins, and most of the admins now present weren't on-project when the Siegenthaller sr issue happened (I arrived a couple of months later, for example).
It's gotta get written down.
On 5/23/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2007 3:14 pm, David Gerard wrote:
Um, it came from Jimbo declaring it as the right approach here after the Siegenthaler fuckup. Perhaps that was before your time.
Well, no, I was around for that. I don't recall "nuke from orbit"
being
part of the discussion, and for good reason.
I remember it being indeed part of the discussion, and certainly that concept if not those words.
This is the danger in "community knowledge" policy.
We have 20x as many users, several times as many admins, and most of the admins now present weren't on-project when the Siegenthaller sr issue happened (I arrived a couple of months later, for example).
It's gotta get written down.
Agreed. If policies are to be descriptive, BLP needs to be altered to fit how it is being used. Implicit meaning alone isn't enough.