On Wed, May 23, 2007 3:04 pm, Trebor Rowntree wrote: 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 -- If you can read this, I'm not at home.

On 5/23/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)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.

On 5/23/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: Could some argue that based on this [[Monica Lewinsky]] should be deleted?

David Gerard wrote: 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."

Matthew Brown wrote: So what about the current situation, in which the subject has stated intent to capitalize on his notoriety, and consented to several media interviews?

Ron Ritzman wrote: 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

On 5/24/07, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: 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?

doc wrote: I'm not sure that's a very good way to do it. Newspapers will print an obituary of damn near anyone.

On 24/05/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 5/23/07, Trebor Rowntree <trebor.rowntree(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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... -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On 23/05/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote: I remember it being indeed part of the discussion, and certainly that concept if not those words. - d.

On 5/23/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com