Template talk:Blpdispute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This template was considered for deletion on 2007 July 18. The result of the discussion was Keep / no consensus. |
Big problem here. "Indisputably" is too low of a bar. If something is potentially controversial and poorly or unsourced, it is to be removed. CyberAnth 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Concur - policy doesn't use "indisputably", so the template probably shouldn't either. Addhoc 23:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I made a revert to this, see here. I very much think the additional language, "In addition, all articles must be neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic and free of original research", is necessary. This is because the sum total of WP:BLP is not met by simple adherence to WP:CITE and I see more than just verifiability problems in many BLPs. I think with BLPs, this template can hardly be too strong. CyberAnth 01:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am the author of both the original text and the revised, shortened version. Looking through Category:Disputed biographies of living persons, I've found a number of articles that comply with WP:LIVING just fine, but have other problems. My goal was to prevent this template's use as a variant of {{noncompliant}}, which I would imagine was the intent of some who used the tag. szyslak (t, c) 03:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I made a revert to this, see here. I very much think the additional language, "In addition, all articles must be neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic and free of original research", is necessary. This is because the sum total of WP:BLP is not met by simple adherence to WP:CITE and I see more than just verifiability problems in many BLPs. I think with BLPs, this template can hardly be too strong. CyberAnth 01:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I edited the template just now to point to the current policies on WP:ATT and original research, since the policies pointed to before had been superseded. --Yksin 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion
Would anyone mind if I changed the layout to the one below? --h2g2bob (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
|
|
This article may violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. |
 |
Articles may not contain unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about living people. In addition, all articles must be neutral, verifiable, free of original research, and encyclopedic.
Please see discussion on the talk page and the living persons biography noticeboard. If a claim violates policy, remove it immediately instead of using this template. |
[edit] When would this be used?
As a matter of interest, when would this template ever be used correctly? If there really is a suspected BLP violation, it should be removed; and if the whole article is a violation, it should be deleted. If there isn't a violation, the template is inappropriate. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- As the creator of this template, I say we just merge it with {{BLPC}}. I prefer the wording of the BLPC tag because it calls for immediate attention rather than just identifying a possible problem, a la the POV and cleanup tags. In addition, I've noticed many editors don't understand the purpose of this tag; they use it to flag stubs, bios about non-notable subjects, hagiographic bios and even bios that need simple cleanup. Gracenotes redirected BLPC to this tag; perhaps after further discussion we can switch it the other way or take other action. What we have here is not working. szyslak 08:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Biased?
I see no problem with a biography containing biased claims. Nearly all sources incl. reputable ones that write about religious or political figures are biased. Bias is a fact of nearly all sources and should not be a problem in itself. Andries (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
