This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) at 17:20, 17 April 2018 (→Recently Deceased: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:20, 17 April 2018 by Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) (→Recently Deceased: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This is the talk page for the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Issues on individual biographies of living persons should go to the noticeboard, not to this talk page. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the noticeboard itself. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Click here to post a question to the Biographies of living persons noticeboardVanishing posts?
Not that it's a big concern to me, but this does seem mysterious. Apparently between this edit and this one, a few posts seemed to have disappeared without being either deleted or archived. I've never seen this happen before, so I was just curious if anyone knows what happened. Zaereth (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- The layout and subtitles were improved after a large misformatted post (now all under Frankopan). I'm not sure if this is what gave the impression of posts being lost, but it's possible (some anchor links in the watchlist and history no longer work). —PaleoNeonate – 02:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
BLP controversy pages
Do you have any historical examples of how pages in the format of " controversies" are dealt with. I recently sent Michael Yeung Ming-cheung controversies as a POV fork of a BLP and it was pointed out to Pat Robertson controversies also existed. I'm pretty skeptical of this practice as it seems to allow for laundry list POV forks that go largely unnoticed or reviewed by anyone. I was just curious if others had thoughts and if there were historical examples of how we applied the BLP policy in these cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- I my be in the minority, but I find such pages to be about as worthwhile as "Celebrity drunk-driving allegations" or the like. Misplaced Pages should stick to being a source of facts, not allegations, controversies, unproven charges, claims of anything where we seem to forget "self-identification" as best source for many things, and so on. Misplaced Pages has far too many now, and should blue pencil a great many of them. Collect (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- We shouldn't have such pages, period, unless it is a larger controversy, and we shouldn't be seeking to try to include every little accusation leveled against a person. There are notable cases where what someone did was seen as controversial and made a lot of noise in the news and thus should be covered, but we shouldn't trying to be where everyone's dirty laundry is hung out, per BLP. If there is a singular controversy that is significant as to require a separate page, then there probably is a more narrower title that can be made (eg Lewinsky scandal). --MASEM (t) 15:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Distinguishing the Robertson and Bishop Yeung cases is not difficult. Where a figure is specifically known for creating and causing controversy, and Pat Robertson certainly counts, then an article on such is logical and follows the sources. There are multiple controversies surrounding certain individuals because they intentionally use controversies to affect societal change or publicity or other goals. Leaving laundry lists of such well-documented controversies in the main articles overwhelms them. The number of people that this applies to, however, is exceedingly small. Religious figures are likely prone to generating such " controversies" articles simply because they are required by their calling to take position on moral and ethical matters but that is not, I would say, in itself sufficient cause for retaining these. Entire books have been written about Robertson's controversial positions while Bishop Yeung does not appear to have anything approaching a similar profile. A " controversies" article" on Robertson is therefore supported by WP:CCPOL while a corresponding article on Bishop Yeung is not. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Which a lot of this comes down to how too many editors in BLP areas (particularly anyone political) disregard WP:RECENTISM, and feel they must insert a controversy about a person just because it was reporter. Pat Robertson's page is a good example where the controversies have persistent and been the focus of study, making sense for a separate article, but we've allowed enough time for that. For Yeung, this all reeks of too much recentism that we have to include, which per BLP and NOT#NEWS, we shouldn't be rushing to do so. We're not a political tabloid, but too many editors see it that way. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Even the Robertson page I am unsure of: do we really need a separate article that documents all the controversy of a US political and religious figure that is distinct from his article? I think most of the sections could be reduced to a sentence or two and incorporated into the actual biography if needed: that seems to be much more in line with the spirit behind the BLP policy and more practical: his article is going to have a lot more oversight, but the controversy page is most likely going to be free to grow as any editor sees fit, which is not ideal when working with living people. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not speaking to these articles in specific but, personally, I have a problem with controversy pages and sections in general. Partly because they just become dumping grounds for whatever POV a person wants to add. I think controversial things should be worked into the timeline of an article and not walled off in a section of their own. This in itself often lends undue weight to controversial situations which wouldn't exist if the information was properly placed. The biggest problem I have is that the term "controversy" is almost always misused in these cases, because these articles or sections rarely talk about the controversy (in many cases there was no controversy at all) but rather just list negative things associated with the subject.
- Even the Robertson page I am unsure of: do we really need a separate article that documents all the controversy of a US political and religious figure that is distinct from his article? I think most of the sections could be reduced to a sentence or two and incorporated into the actual biography if needed: that seems to be much more in line with the spirit behind the BLP policy and more practical: his article is going to have a lot more oversight, but the controversy page is most likely going to be free to grow as any editor sees fit, which is not ideal when working with living people. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Which a lot of this comes down to how too many editors in BLP areas (particularly anyone political) disregard WP:RECENTISM, and feel they must insert a controversy about a person just because it was reporter. Pat Robertson's page is a good example where the controversies have persistent and been the focus of study, making sense for a separate article, but we've allowed enough time for that. For Yeung, this all reeks of too much recentism that we have to include, which per BLP and NOT#NEWS, we shouldn't be rushing to do so. We're not a political tabloid, but too many editors see it that way. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Distinguishing the Robertson and Bishop Yeung cases is not difficult. Where a figure is specifically known for creating and causing controversy, and Pat Robertson certainly counts, then an article on such is logical and follows the sources. There are multiple controversies surrounding certain individuals because they intentionally use controversies to affect societal change or publicity or other goals. Leaving laundry lists of such well-documented controversies in the main articles overwhelms them. The number of people that this applies to, however, is exceedingly small. Religious figures are likely prone to generating such " controversies" articles simply because they are required by their calling to take position on moral and ethical matters but that is not, I would say, in itself sufficient cause for retaining these. Entire books have been written about Robertson's controversial positions while Bishop Yeung does not appear to have anything approaching a similar profile. A " controversies" article" on Robertson is therefore supported by WP:CCPOL while a corresponding article on Bishop Yeung is not. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- The definition of "controversy" is "a lot of public debate over a topic or issue." A lawsuit, a fight, an argument, sexual misconduct, committing a crime; these things in and of themselves are not controversies. A section or article labeled "controversies" should be about the large public debate. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Rhodes Scholar
Does receiving a Rhodes Scholarship confer notability, or does the subject of a BLP have to be notable for something else? YoPienso (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- A Rhodes Scholarship does not confer notability. The subject will have to meet the usual notability requirements for biographies. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- No. And note that for most people who have received one, it is the first time they have been mentioned in news reporting. Many Rhodes scholars have of course achieve notability during their careers. TFD (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Rhodes Scholarships are not rare at all (over 8,000 worldwide since inception). IMHO, the fact that a person has such an award is not something notable per se, but a number of notable persons have had the scholarship. The same, however, is true of Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) - many notables in the US have been Eagle Scouts, but the award is not in and of itself "notability." Collect (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- As noted above, simply being a Rhodes Scholar is not notable in and of itself. However, we should include if someone was a Rhodes Scholar if they already have a page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, all! YoPienso (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Posting on rev-del IRC
This is likely a totally silly question (I am not using IRC regularly, bear with me): after I post a request on this IRC channel, should I stay logged in until someone responds? Or will my request stay visible in the message queue, even after I have logged out without a response? My actual request on IRC has already been handled btw - thanks for any advice. GermanJoe (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Recently Deceased
In some cases BLP applies to recently deceased. Does this mean at some point after death BLP no longer applies, if so, how much must pass to no longer be considered recent? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)