On 29/03/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/03/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/03/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Certainly. While the dead cannot themselves sue, read [[Julian Bell]] for the high-profile case of [[Hong Ying]]; in which a Chinese court found that the dead could be defamed (by a work of fiction). We have _never_ allowed general arguments on respectfulness to condition what we will allow in enWP.
I'd say it's relevant - respect for the *reader*. Is the article good and useful?
Isn't this too simplistic? Surely, different readers have different needs. To a film buff, the actors career is important; to the celebritist and media scientist, the tabloid stuff is important; to the politicist, their activism is important. I'm not sure any part of an individual's potential biography should be dismissed out of hand, and particularly not with the justification that the reader doesn't need to read this particular piece of information. Nor can we idealise the biography and attempt to determine what the average reader wants or needs.
No, not at all simplistic - I meant what I said :-)
- d.