Are people other than arbitrators allowed to add to the proposed principles? Geedubber 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think some people are confused with how to use this page. For example, "The CBC documentary 'Sticks and Stones' stuff should go" should be a proposed remedy not a proposed principle. And "Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons should trump the three revert rule" should be a proposed principle not a proposed remedy. Geedubber 20:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't this go too far? (To be clear, I have no interest in particular in Canadian politics or former politicians' aides-turned-columnists, and while I am generally conservative I think Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are blowhards.) I can see that the Marsden article is significantly slanted. However, some people only generate coverage in reliable source media by doing bad things. If this principle is broadly adopted we will have to stub or delete all sorts of articles on notable criminals (at a rough start) because we can't find a reliable source that has written something nice about them. BLP is an important and powerful principle but we don't want to cripple ourselves, do we? Thatcher131 17:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
If another editor confirms the original source, can/would the intermediate source citation be removed? Geedubber 03:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Under No original research 4: selective exclusion, Bucketsofg writes, "Selectively excluding material may result in a new synthesis and therefore be inconsistent with WP:NOR." That is a fair point. I would not want BLP to be misused by the supporters of fringe theories. We should not let them use us to legitimize their guru by suppressing negative information. The answer may be that there are just some people for whom we cannot maintin a biography that satisfies our policies. Maybe we need to raise the threshold of notability. Tom Harrison Talk 17:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Are people other than arbitrators allowed to add to the proposed principles? Geedubber 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think some people are confused with how to use this page. For example, "The CBC documentary 'Sticks and Stones' stuff should go" should be a proposed remedy not a proposed principle. And "Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons should trump the three revert rule" should be a proposed principle not a proposed remedy. Geedubber 20:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't this go too far? (To be clear, I have no interest in particular in Canadian politics or former politicians' aides-turned-columnists, and while I am generally conservative I think Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are blowhards.) I can see that the Marsden article is significantly slanted. However, some people only generate coverage in reliable source media by doing bad things. If this principle is broadly adopted we will have to stub or delete all sorts of articles on notable criminals (at a rough start) because we can't find a reliable source that has written something nice about them. BLP is an important and powerful principle but we don't want to cripple ourselves, do we? Thatcher131 17:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
If another editor confirms the original source, can/would the intermediate source citation be removed? Geedubber 03:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Under No original research 4: selective exclusion, Bucketsofg writes, "Selectively excluding material may result in a new synthesis and therefore be inconsistent with WP:NOR." That is a fair point. I would not want BLP to be misused by the supporters of fringe theories. We should not let them use us to legitimize their guru by suppressing negative information. The answer may be that there are just some people for whom we cannot maintin a biography that satisfies our policies. Maybe we need to raise the threshold of notability. Tom Harrison Talk 17:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)