Wikipedia talk:Central aspects of BLP

This essay is satirical, I assume? CIreland (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not in the least. WP:BLP has lost its way and is fundamentally divorced from its raison d'etre. It's become a victim of its own success and thus is no longer the focused tool to prevent harm that it was at its inception. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There are people that argue that "everything can cause harm because we don't know all the context". So any simple formulation like this can easily be used to apply BLP to pretty much anything. Here's a recent biography I touched Alex_Katunich. It's poorly sourced. "Katunich was a member of Incubus from 1991-2003, and played bass on the albums Fungus Amongus, "Enjoy Incubus" , S.C.I.E.N.C.E., Make Yourself, and Morning View." So the BLP extremist would argue "Maybe Fungus Amongus was an absolutely terrible album and it damages Katunich's name to be associated with it... we just can't know... so everything is BLP." It's this kind of BLP extremism that is leading to a lot of the scope creep. Gigs (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, working on that. I may replace "can you envision" with a reasonable man standard to combat that. Jclemens (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be moved

"COREBLP" is a shortcut, not a destination. No idea what an appropriate title would be, though I can think of several inappropriate ones. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. I'll figure one out and move it. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-incorporate

Do you have any desire to try to work on trimming the BLP policy toward this type language? I agree with what you're saying here, but I'd hate to have it lost in an essay when it belongs as policy.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 06:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the mandarins who control BLP want it back in there... hence, it's here for now. I think the foundation and Jimbo might actually see things my way, but they're not going to intervene. What do you suggest? Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm an active reader, and occasional contributor, at BLP, and I'm trying to work little-by-little to move the policy back toward the core set of issues found at [1]. Nobody wants a puff piece, but that seems to be the strawman brought out when trying to cut BLP back to the essentials. If we can find a way to keep the discussion on track, focused on making the policy more accessible then I think change can happen.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 01:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The third aspect

If the material is harmful but sourced, it "generally stays in", the exception being "unless Jimbo and/or Arbcom overrule things, a la Star Wars Kid".

I think there is a better way to describe it, using an additional aspect: is it important? In the Star Wars Kid case, "Jimbo and/or Arbcom" (I'm not really familiar with the actual proceedings) made a correct decision by concluding that the marginal encyclopedic significance of naming an otherwise low-profile person does not justify potential real-life harm. With the third aspect added into the equation, one would not need to invoke Jimbo ex machina to explain why the exceptions to the "harmful but sourced" situation occur.

If e.g. this edit is a good one (and, having made it, I'd say it is), then there has to be a reason for it. The question "Is it important?" makes the difference here, in the Star Wars Kid case, as well as in many other cases. GregorB (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Undue

What this doesn't allow for is the situation where the material is negative and true, we can find a reliable source for it and maybe if we were writing a book length bio it would merit a paragraph or footnote, but frankly it is too obscure to be worth a mention in the sort of articles we write. So some journalist mentions in an op ed that they went to the same school as a famous person and remembered that they both did detention together, would you really put that detention in an article? ϢereSpielChequers 17:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That's true, and intentional. WP:DUE discussions on sourced material were never supposed to be subject to the 'contentious BLP' rule--not everything in a BLP that may end up being excluded from the article merits the special BLP enforcement provisions--protections and blocks outside of normal process. This essay could be modified to include that, but I think it serves its purpose to remind editors--especially admins--about the goals of special BLP enforcement provisions. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

OK I see where you are coming from, but I would feel more comfortable if "It stays in, period." were "It stays in, unless undue." Currently it could be read as overruling all other policies. ϢereSpielChequers 22:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)