Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Privatemusings (talk | contribs) at 07:30, 31 October 2007 (→Some transparency re : the blog issue: edit own). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

In my view, there is no need to move/disambiguate Prof Black's article. If there is any argumentation in favour or against, perhaps we could rehearse it here!Phase1 21:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ProfBlack.jpg

Image:ProfBlack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Blog

I have removed the links to his blog which attempted to reveal details about an editor. See ARBCOM ruling.--Privacyisall 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please share with the wider Misplaced Pages community what this ARBCOM ruling is all about.Phase4 22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Is 'contribution by banned user' the sole reason for removing material?

I support that action, but am minded to return some of the material as relevant and notable in this instance. Is there any further reason not to link to the article subject's blog? Privatemusings 01:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't spotted that the text still referenced the blog - I've reinserted the reference, which is hopefully a good solution. Privatemusings 01:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

To nobody's surprise, I'll concur. Assuming it's truly notable enough to be explicitly mentioned in text, it's notable enough to be linked to. If Black and his blog aren't notable enough to merit mention, that's a horse of a different color, and delete away. but Black's views towards wikipedia shouldn't be the deciding factor. --Alecmconroy 01:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I heartily applaud Jossi's deletion on the grounds of WP:SPS. Whether the link should stay or go, this is the right direction to be going, as we now have something to discuss. In this case, I don't see how WP:SPS mandates deletion, since as far as I can tell, the link wasn't being used as a reference for any claims about anyone but Black-- namely, it was being used to support the text "Black maintains a blog."-- WP:EL makes me think the link's appropriate: Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. --Alecmconroy 02:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict, and I'm afarid I'm going to hold the applause, but agree that the discussion should be framed in terms of our external links, and self published source guidelines.)

OK, jossi has removed the link, citing the fact that self published sources can't be used as links concerning third parties. I'm not sure exactly what that means in this case. My reading is that the text mentions the blog, the blog is an acceptable source for the blog, so should be included - could you explain? Privatemusings 02:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A self published source that makes assertions about third parties (in particular if these are living people), should not be used, as per WP:BLP. This is not a case of 1RR, it is a case of what is right. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that our guidelines at WP:SPS allow this reference? - We can then move on to discuss WP:BLP Privatemusings 02:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I read SPS thusly. I think at issue here is not whether the WEBSITE we link to might somewhere on its pages contain some claim about third parties. The question is, are WE using it to support a statement about third parties. Since in this case we're using it to support "Black has a blog", we are not, and it's not an SPS problem at least. --Alecmconroy 02:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My analysis of the two provided guidelines cited as requiring the removal of this link;

• WP:SPS - "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves." - clearly allows for this link.

• WP:BLP - "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person that is controversial, or derogatory..." - this link is not being used as a source for such material.

I note that you seem to have misapplied BLP by stating that a source cannot be used if it contains any such material. This is not the case, it is simply that this source cannot be used as a claim for 'controversial or derogatory' material. It's not being.

There's no deadline though, I won't return the link for another 24hours. Privatemusings 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm... I see your point. Maybe the question is: is the blog a worthy addition to this article? If not, why to link to it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. Privatemusings 02:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It answers the questions "What are his current activities?" SchmuckyTheCat

Is the blog worth mentioning?

Professor Black's notability is intimately connected with Pan Am Flight 103, and his blog deals with his thoughts on the issue, as well as updates as to his activities.

Yes, the blog should be mentioned and linked. Privatemusings 02:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Further, the blog was mentioned first on 8th July (diff) by User:Phase4, who seems to be an editor in good standing. If the current editing is motivated by wiki-political reasons , and has priorities other than sound editorial judgment, then we must curtail this practice. Whether the link remains or not shouldn't be influenced at all by Prof. Black's writings about a wikipedian.

I believe it's best the link is returned tomorrow. Privatemusings 02:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it his blog? Tom Harrison 10:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently. I'd say EL points towards inclusion.--Alecmconroy 10:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What source says it is his blog? Tom Harrison 10:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

His official page at his university, it seems. --Alecmconroy 10:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like his official page would be the thing to link to then. Excuse me if I don't reply promptly. Tom Harrison 11:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If his blog is notable enough to merit inclusion in the text, why wouldn't we include a link to it? (aside from the fact that we don't like him and his POV of course). --Alecmconroy 12:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If any editor wishes to assert that this blog isn't in fact authored buy the subject of the article, then that seems to me to be a strong argument. If the lockerbie tragedy is an important part of the subject's notability (i believe it is), and if the blog is written by the subject concerning that tragedy (ditto), then I believe we should refer to it. Privatemusings 13:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If the blog is notable enough to mention, it probably ought to be linked to. Any claim that it violates policy because it happens to mention other living people on it is a real stretch; are we to remove all self-published links everywhere if the authors ever mention any person other than themselves on their sites? I don't think that's what is meant by the policy provisions. We shouldn't use such sites as the source for citing information about third parties, but that doesn't mean that we can't ever link to them in any other context. *Dan T.* 16:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've returned the reference to the blog per the above. Privatemusings 23:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. On the whole the blog link adds nothing to the article. Evaluating the value to an encyclopedia of the link and to cost to the encyclopedia of having the link, it is apparent that the link provides no positive net value. MOASPN 02:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I really can't agree. Professor Black is notable, and as such has an article here. The defining area of Prof. Black's notability is his involvement with the Lockerbie case, and he has a website - a blog on the subject. I'd strongly suggest that WP:EL is clear on this - the blog should be linked.

When you mention cost to the encyclopedia, presumably you refer to upset / stress on the part of SlimVirgin, with reference to Prof. Black's mention of her. It really isn't consistent with NPOV to balance the cost in terms of our own editors feelings with benefit in terms of encyclopedic value in article space.

We must of course be compassionate, careful and rigorous that links such as this one aren't used as sources for general claims (for example as to the innocence of the person currently in gaol for the bombing) - but to refuse to mention the verifiable fact that Prof. Black maintains a blog is silly, and sets a dangerous precedent.

I shall return the link as my one revert today. Privatemusings 02:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted. If Robert Black isn't sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, that's a matter for AFD. If we are going to discuss him, however, we have to do so according to NPOV-- that means not deleting his blogs or comments just because we personally disagree with the views he expresses. (I'm assuming that's part of what MOASPN means by "cost to the encyclopedia"-- the cost of promoting someone who's criticized a Wikipedian / has made fringe theory).

At this point, however, I haven't made any decision on Black's notability-- I'm merely saying, if he is going to be covered, he must be covered neutrally in a way that accurately covers the man's views and notable writings. That this article is a BLP only makes it all the more important not to let our personal disgust for Black affect how we write his article. --Alecmconroy 02:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My initial reaction to the two additional sections removed was that the sourcing wasn't strong enough. Having followed through, however it's clear that the sources are actually fully compliant with WP:RS - being reputable daily newspapers. I've clarified that the webpages linked to are solely transcriptions of the original source articles - which is an improvement I believe. Privatemusings 03:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that was weird. Strictly speaking, I had intended to revert the deletion of blog, but I see PM beat me to it. Please take all my comments in light of the fact that I thought I was reverting all three deletions. --Alecmconroy 03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

1rr

You have an odd definition of 1rr:

. 3 reverts in 26 hours is borderline 3rr, not borderline 1rr. How pleasant. MOASPN 05:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not on the contributor please. --Alecmconroy 06:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I guess I was operating from an idiosyncratic concept of what is an edit, and what is a revert - but it's definitely good advice to really try and stick to 1RR. Alec's truism stands, of course. Privatemusings 08:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another removal of link

User:Privacyisall has removed the link stating that's it's unreliable, and pushes conspiracy theories.

Per the above, WP:EL and WP:RS are quite clear that the blog is a sensible source for the notable claim that a blog exists. I will return the link, and encourage editors to engage here. Privatemusings 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1rr must be really stretched at this point. Are you waiting till exactly 24 hours from your last revert? MOASPN 00:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I simply allow myself one revert each day to an edit made that day. Sorry if this is confusing - I won't revert again today. PS - Let's take great care to remain civil, and collegial. Privatemusings 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're basically not abiding by 1rr? Got it! MOASPN 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your 'must try harder' on the chin, and though we may disagree from time to time about when a revert is a revert, I will try and improve, and still believe that 1RR is a sensible goal and yardstick for editors to stick to. Would you mind moving on from this subject now? Privatemusings 01:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

An RfC - should a link to the subject's blog be included?

Template:RFCbio

It would be helpful for an editor to take 5 or 10 minutes to read the article, and talk page, and consider whether or not the subject's blog should be mentioned, linked, both or neither. Thanks very much! Privatemusings 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A link to his official site is appropriate. Linking to his blog is promotional. Tom Harrison 02:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to determine whether his University Page, or blog is his 'official' site. Per the below, I am forming the opinion that the blog is notable in terms of this article. Privatemusings 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, per your removal of the text, you also seem to believe that the mention of the blog is inappropriate - is this the case? Privatemusings 02:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If the blog is specifically referred to in the text of the article, then linking to it makes sense. If the blog is too non-notable to mention, then it shouldn't be linked to. *Dan T.* 02:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is my (newly formed, not fully formed) opinion that it is self-evident that the blog is notable, being directly related to the established notability of the author. It is therefore important to include. Agree that linking to a non-notable blog is promotional - disagree that that is the case here. Privatemusings 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources support your opinion about its notability? Tom Harrison 02:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the below, and have edited my comment above (italicized text) to clarify meaning. Privatemusings 03:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is notable in that the subject of the article wrote it. It should not be used as a reference unless attributed to the professor. It can be used as an External link per WP:EL since it adds information to the article. Sfacets 02:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that even make sense? Your first two sentences contradict each other. "The subject of the article wrote it." "unless attributed to the professor." Well, yes, the professor, the subject of the article, writing it would attribute it to him. SchmuckyTheCat

Sfacets makes perfect sense, although maybe he said it in a convoluted way. We can use Black's blog to verify claims of the form "Black says ....". We can't use his self-published block to verify statements of the form "The capitol of Assyria is Ninevah", since his Black isn't an expert on that subject and his comments haven't been peer reviewed.

Since the blog was just being used to verify direct quotes from Black, it's inclusion is not a prob. --Alecmconroy 11:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, include. The blog is notable for his activities at a certain point of time. We include reference links to notable and easily accessible works by the subject of the article. SchmuckyTheCat

It's clearly an official site run by the subject of the bio. We have to link to it. --Alecmconroy 05:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Prof Black is a recognized expert on Scots law, was born in Lockerbie and is architect of the original Camp Zeist trial. On those grounds alone his thoughts on a possible miscarriage of justice for Megrahi are of wide-ranging and encyclopedic interest and belong to his biography. Also his views on this subject are shared by, among others, an official UN observer at the trial, Hans Köchler, president of an international think tank. -- luke 06:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In July 2007 I made the original link from the article to Professor Black's blog and am therefore slightly biased on the question posed. However, for all the reasons given by luke above, I answer yes the link should be included.Phase4 11:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless a blog is notable in its own right I don't see how it would be "directly related to the established notability of the author." The subject isn't notable for his blog just as he isn't notable for his pets, which we don't list either. I don't think that's a good standard to use here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry - I don't think I've been as clear as I could have been - here's another go; Prof. Black is a notable person (no editor has questioned this thus far), of primary interest is his interest / association with the investigation and legal prosecution connected to the Locerbie bombing (both the bombing and prosecution are clearly notable events, this too remains a unanimous consensus position thus far). The writings of Prof. Black as a notable person with views / writings on a notable event are clearly notable. Prof. Black's blog is exactly that, and is notable, verifiable, and interesting. Would you assert otherwise? Privatemusings 07:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY: "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." --Alecmconroy 07:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If it adds information to the article the it is useful to link to it. Sfacets 00:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Some transparency re : the blog issue

For the sake of transparency, and for future editors' information, I wanted to be clear that many of the recent editors to this page have arrived here as interested participants in a much larger wiki-wide discussion, and specifically through a posting to Misplaced Pages's 'No Personal Attacks' policy talkpage.

At that policy page, and in other places throughout wikipedia, editors have been debating, amongst other things, how to deal with external links that mention wikipedians personal details (and what constitutes harassment, which we have all agreed is unacceptable). Many editors are supportive of a fairly restrictive approach which severely curtails the publishing of links which may reveal such information (like the real world name of a particular user).

Several of the editors above have already taken fairly firm positions on whether or not links should be 'allowed' or not - and our biases are perhaps not only easy to spot, but colouring the discussion above. Very few of the above editors, despite good faith and intentions, are discussing this case solely on its particular merits, but rather through the prism of a more developed opinion on the bigger picture. I'm as subject to this as any other editor.

Hence the importance of attracting neutral comments through the RfC (thanks for commenting all), and getting the attention of the editors who have developed the article to its current state (thanks for your work.) This note is intended simply to let those editors, and future editors who may engage here, know a little more about the background to the recent edits, and current discussion. Privatemusings 07:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles