Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Archives

• Archive 1 — talk page posts from August 2006 through March 2007.

Parliamentary privilege

I'd like opinions on whether information disclosed using Parliamentary privilege is acceptable for use in articles. An MP is welcome to make any allegation they choose without any evidence, and as all proceedings are available online they can be reliably sourced. The articles I'm concerned about are La Mon restaurant bombing and Kingsmill massacre. The latter is slightly less problematic due to the additional coverage of the allegation. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My view is that as long as Parliamentary privilege article is linked to, and is properly explained, it isn't an issue. The Parliamentary privilege article explains it fully, but maybe in each article which has a mention of its use there should be an explanation of its legal standing and the controversy surrounding it. It is mentioned in the Bobby Storey article as well. In that article it states that "No evidence has been publicly produced to confirm these allegations", which is an important point to make. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I'm of the opinion that if we're including an allegation that a living person murdered 12 people we need a better source than this person said it, as after all exceptional claims require exceptional sources. For example David Icke claimed that the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh are "bloodsucking alien lizards", I can only imagine the furore if I tried to include that in their articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My view is that as long as Parliamentary privilege article is linked to, and is properly explained, it isn't an issue. The Parliamentary privilege article explains it fully, but maybe in each article which has a mention of its use there should be an explanation of its legal standing and the controversy surrounding it. It is mentioned in the Bobby Storey article as well. In that article it states that "No evidence has been publicly produced to confirm these allegations", which is an important point to make. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine as long as it is done responsibly and within the bounds of WP:BLP as is done in Kingsmill massacre. That is, the text is cited and it is explicitly stated in such a way that it is understood that MP X stated Y about Z under parliamentary privilege. It becomes a problem when a cite of something said under parliamentary privilege is used to support weasel wording like "it is widely believed [that something is true]" or "officials believe person X is responsible for action Y". As long as it is clearly stated who said something and in what context, I'm comfortable letting readers discern the validity of the statement and source for themselves. I was writing this during your post above and I'd say that I wouldn't want to see "person X murdered 12 according to MP Y". but "in a parliamentary session MP Y, invoking Parliamentary privilege, stated it was his belief that person X was responsible for the murder of 12 people" would be more acceptable.--Isotope23 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough, I'll make the necessary changes to the La Mon article later and probably include brief details about the controversy of the use of PP as a footnote. So I take it there's no objections to the addition of "According to David Icke, the Duke of Edinburgh is a bloodsucking alien lizard, but no evidence has been publicly produced to confirm this allegation" to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh then? ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to revert you... I for one welcome our new Reptilian Overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a Wikipedia Admin I could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves... or would that be guinea pig mines?--Isotope23 17:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the section, given that it adds nothing to the section, as it is not an official call for inquiry. In addition, the removed section is nothing but anti-SF and anti-Adams rantings that would be considered libel anywhere else gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

A highly biased study of Bill O'Reilly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Bill_O%27Reilly has been added to his criticism article with the results comparing him to a Nazi sympathizer. Regardless of whether the study is valid, it's only purpose is to criticize BOR further and may be libelous. Arzel 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits that I hope vitiate the POV nature of the study in question. Since the controversy has drawn replies from BOR and a FOX producer, I think it's notable. Best, MoodyGroove 19:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I still don't think it is notable, but it is nice to see another response. I re-inserted the comment you took out. It is in the published article near the end of the paper in the discussion section. Arzel 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Section removed

Special:Contributions/72.139.17.252 posted a BLP/N section about Max Boot with "Fix it, you retards" in the post and "wikipedia, or a hole in the ground?" in the edit summary. I applied {{unsigned}}, investigated the situation (article history, diffs, etc.) and removed it. If any conscientious NPOV editor thinks the section belongs on the noticeboard, please feel free to restore it. — Athaenara ✉ 07:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Followup (1): User again posted, reverted by Crum375. — 00:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Followup (2): User hates Wikipedia. — 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Living people cat

When I run across articles like 2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident, I add the Living people cat so that it will show up in the related changes tool we use. Often I get reverted repeatedly. Can I get some consensus here as to whether or not this is an appropriate application of the category? - Crockspot 06:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As my edit summary when I restored the category there said, "The point here is that the Biographies of living persons *policy* applies here and Category:Living people keeps the article on WP:BLP patrol." — Athaenara ✉ 07:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Owe you one. - Crockspot 12:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The BLP policy applies to every single article (and every page) we have. violet/riga (t) 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a monitoring thing. Please stop reverting the category. - Crockspot 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• This article is now listed on the noticeboard, due to edit warring over the category. The category was created exactly for the purpose which I am attempting to use it for. I don't have the time to fool around with a bunch of editors every time I try to apply this cat to a biography fork that needs oversight. - Crockspot 17:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with violetriga. This is clearly not as clear-cut as you (Crockspot) seem to believe. WP:BLP applies to all articles, not only to those in a given category. Checking recent changes there may be a useful tool, but we shouldn't introduce nonsense into the encyclopaedia just to improve a tool; it is the tool which should be improved in that case. --Stemonitis 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)