Knowledge (XXG) talk:Avoiding harm

1539:

limited media attention than it actually did. It's in the nature of Knowledge (XXG) that our editors often look intensively at a particular subject, and find information from obscure sources that an ordinary reader would find only after spending hours on Google or after traveling to a major research library to consult a printed source. That's precisely what makes Knowledge (XXG) valuable to many readers. I can't see this situation as one for excluding the information. If a notable person, clearly meriting a bio (such as a statewide elected official), has been arrested on cocaine charges, and the arrest can be properly documented, that's legitimate encyclopedic content. Yes, including it in our article may well cause the notable person to be even more upset than s/he was when the only coverage was less widely available. So what? Our primary obligation is to our readers, not to people who might prefer the suppression of significant, verified information about themselves.

1607:

in advance if I misrepresent anyone's viewpoint. But, as demonstrated by the arbitration case, Doc glasgow and JzG (both admins) have been active on one side of these disputes, and Violetriga and myself (again, both admins) on the other. Clearly, it would be pointless having a "two-admin rule" if the deleting admin could just fire off an email to someone who consistently shares their own stance on BLP, and then say "we've had adequate discussion". I was thinking that one of the many hundreds of admins who were not involved in the bdj case, and who have not been active in the development of the BLP policy, would be a better choice as the "second admin". I won't revert your edits for now, but we'll see how things develop.

922:

take, which media are considered to be reliable, and so forth. The statement, "...much of the media coverage surrounding her as an individual focuses on the underage drinking incident" overlooks the tendency of some forms of media to sensationalize, especially about public figures (or their daughters). Should Knowledge (XXG) reflect that media tendency or not? Seems to me that this is a pivotal issue in the current debates over BLP. I don't think the essay provides an adequate resolution for this. #1 is also ambiguously stated. "Widely known" is a fuzzy criterion, with no objective measure. The text following attempts to clarify, but could be improved.

1622:- can you please give it a sanity check?" The reply would either be "that deletion lookd fine", or "not sure about that, can we discuss further by e-mail?" If both admins agree, then they should both be prepared to defend the deletion against anyone questioning it. If the second admin raises a concern, then the original admin may learn something. Basically a small step before a full-blown DRV, and an increase in communication (which can only be good). What we want to avoid, is inexperienced admins deleting stuff and then posting the action at WP:ANI or WP:AN to get it reviewed, as that might start a unnecessary forest fire. 2566:

prevented for potential victims by having that article - and my ethical system makes it clear which it is ethical to care more about. On the positive side, a barely notable person doing good (in whatever ethical system you want to assume; perhaps charitable works, religion, political advocacy, etc...) there is harm by making those good works less prominent when the article is removed. So far as I can tell, the community has not seriously considered this two-edged nature of "do no harm", but in some situations I have seen, "do no harm" was a better reason for having content than for removing it.

979:

I think some reminder that sources must be reliable, independent, and verifiable is needed, if "we won't always know what sources NBC or CBS uses" is a serious response to the suggestion that even "widely known" information must be sourced. I also included a time period in order to eliminate the kind of recentist "event of the week" kind of coverage that is so popular these days as "entertainment" in news broadcasts. I don't think an event that is covered for a week and then forgotten should necessarily qualify. Just explaining those changes here, since they're now gone. -

1689:

published the victim's name, or the victim him/herself talked freely about it to the media. Again, in the case of the politician, the test would be applied. I can think of few politicians who don't face enormous media scrutiny, so I imagine a suspected fraud would be well-publicized, and it would thus pass the inclusion test. I find that having specific criteria to clarify the concept of harm much more helpful than asking people to make or accept subjective judgments. -

726:"historically significant and notable information" then you will be deleting the articles on individual pokemon and all those historically significant bands, pull the other one. This whole wannabe policy is a POV warriors delight. It is based around the idea that you remove information, not a good way to build an encyclopedia. Why does "historically significant and notable information" only apply to stuff that should be in the encyclopedia, the shit always remains. 4054:. The main issue is whether to include a US Congressional campaign finance issue in a BLP for which we have only very limited sourcing on the rest of the subject's bio (we have four reliable secondary sources on the campaign finance issue, and only six on all the rest of the subject's life, three of which come from the same outlet.) The campaign finance issue was not in the original entry, but came up in the search for more sources at 2442:, a continuous discussion involving the inclusion of photographs which show naked women whom have voiced their opposition to having the images removed should not have even been eligible for the lengthly discussion and long delay it took to get them removed, since it is a clearly extension of "Do no harm." To make this unambiguous, and to qualify them for speedy deletion I feel as though this policy should be made official. 33: 909:

But, as the ArbCom has tacitly endorsed such actions as appropriate, I felt it was best to have a guideline to clarify exactly when this is allowable. And I strongly agree that the reason for the deletion of the material should be discussed somewhere - that's why I advocated the "two-admin rule", so that it isn't just one admin's arbitrary decision. I will rewrite parts of the essay to strengthen this.

407:

How about, instead of "the Jenna Bush test" it could be renamed to "the Inclusion Test" and trust that its position in the article would make the meaning obvious. Another name might be better, just it also seems obvious that anyone who has a personal grudge against the Bushes might be delighted to see Jenna's name mentioned, again, more prominently than necessary in the context of her "teenager goof."

92: 64: 156: 3219:

anything, but what should matter is anything that can be pointed to that would show some lack of security if a year of birth were more widely known. I wouldn't remove a year of birth without strong evidence or a very cogent argument or, preferably, both. If you get either, it would be worth sharing with other editors, perhaps here, because then a change in policy should be considered.

2817:

etc., made a request to remove what the initials stand for, apparently because they simply disliked their given name. Now, I'm sure this article subject was just innocently making a request of the type that is commonly made to magazines—that they prefer their name written in such a form—but in the context of an encyclopedia this is not a request that should I think be granted.

2395:

discussion, attempt to improve the content, and then, after the discussion, judge whether you can justify restoring the content. This works the other way around as well. If someone restores content that you have removed, point out to them that you said in the edit summary that you feel the material does harm, explain why, revert them, and initiate discussion. Make clear that you

78: 3736:

to their career--if people can keep it hidden, we of course dont start OR to unearth the data, and we do not report exact day unless it is very widely known since it can be used to actually breech privacy of records, and of course not the year for children, also unless very widely known. Adults with non-sensitive careers and obvious sources is a little absurd.

3025:"5) Quote me a good book, not a news report, about someone's life, and I'll accept it as a quotable source without blinking." Thats not WP policy on sources and of course removes one of the main advantages of having an online encyclopedia its ability to be up to the minute. 3and4 but notable (in your opinion only) people have the time to do that? 3012:

spend the rest of his live checking WP? Odds that someone else will are neglegible, buried in the over 200,000 "cat:living peaple" articles. 5) Quote me a good book, not a news report, about someone's life, and I'll accept it as a quotable source without blinking. 6) Yes it is your fault, did *you* bothered to check? And it's my fault to. -

2989:, about his life?! More likely than not someone will sooner or later "improve" the article by adding other details. That would be an invasion of privacy. Not to mention that false statements persisted, in at least a well know case, for months in a relatively high profile biography. How long will a false claim last on something like this? - 226:"1. Is the information already widely known? If so, and if it has appeared in numerous mainstream news sources, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article. If the information has only appeared in a few tabloid sources, local newspapers, or websites of dubious quality, then it is not appropriate to include it. 2258:" People tend to take the exact wording fo policy quite literally when using it in AFD debates, so I don't want this article to start an accidental precedent for the length of significant coverage. Perhaps it should just say something along the lines of "appeared in significant coverage by multiple reliable publications"? 794:, in which the only sourced information we can put is "John Doe was accused of involvement in the Big Bad 2008 Embezzlement Scandal." That's not a biography, and we would be violating NPOV's requirement of due weight by presenting that one incident as the sum total of that person's life. On the other hand, when a person 3375:

concealment of where he went to college, would we honor that? What if he claimed it required the concealment of one of the positions in his career? The basic rule of Knowledge (XXG) is common sense. It is just such claims as this that make me concerned about any special provisions for living people beyond V and NPOV.

232:"3. Is the information essential to the subject's notability? Although Ms. Bush is notable as the daughter of a serving head of state, much of the media coverage surrounding her as an individual focuses on the underage drinking incident. As such, the information can be seen as essential to the article. 4007:

In response to criticism over the actions taken, Wales stated that no Knowledge (XXG) policies were broken, and that relevant processes were followed. Peter Sussman of the Society of Professional Journalists' ethics committee likened the description of Wales involvement to that of a newspaper editor,

3735:

we got it right the first time. Frankly, a relatively incomprehensible request, which well explains why I think the general defefence paid to the wishes of the subject is inappropriate. This is more usual in the case of performing artists of various sorts, where at least it has some actual connection

3543:

From my point of view, I don't think it is relevant whether you or I can think of a reason why the college a subject went to might be sensitive. Normally of course, college is not sensitive information, so a circumstance in which it is "sensitive" is going to be uncommon. So please do not dismiss my

3270:

IMDB is accepted for noncontroversial biographical facts (remembering that he birth of some people there may be controversial) and it gives the FULL date of his birth. We have no basis in policy for removing year of birth at the request of the subject--the BLP policy is quite specific that we in fact

3241:

Further thoughts: If you want to, you can remove unsourced material or material not sourced to a reliable source. I see no source for his birth year (although there's usually a reliable source for that to be found somewhere). I also see quite a few footnotes refering to IMDb.com, which I think may be

3187:

If the birthday is already available in reliable sources then releasing it here would not be a privacy issue. If it is not in a reliable source then we need to remove it because it is a) original research, and b) a potential invasion of privacy. So it all depends on the quality of the source that has

3091:

This essay is a good one, though I personally would prefer to keep it an essay. The only thing I dislike concerns the first point of the inclusion test. Right now, it is confusing and contradictory, and will need to be rephrased whether my argument below is agreed upon or not. Before I put forward my

2505:

for incompleteness. Bear in mind though that if all you need to say about a CEO is a few sentences about when he was born, and what company he is in charge of, then you could just as well say that at the article about the company, and use a redirect instead. As the information expands (eg. CEO of one

2471:

For certain "must have" categories, such as CEOs of very large companies, former US Congressmen, etc., the initial article may be a stub using information taken from the company's web site. Such woefully incomplete and potentially unbalanced articles should not be deleted as long as the person holds

1938:

I think adding "temporary"/"provisional" etc. to the edit/deletion summary is often useful, even when the deleting editor/admin believes the material/article cannot be restored in any shape or form. This is still a wiki and bold-revert-discuss-consensus still applies. The main difference with non-BLP

1836:

Administrators' noticeboard? No thanks. Every troll who ever bore malice to Knowledge (XXG) watches it. Requiring an entry there for sensitive deletions would be very, very stupid. In most cases a review by a few admins should be enough. We trust administrators to perform speedies, surely we can

1210:

Ms Bush's underaged drinking incident is of small significance but I think it should be included because we wouldn't want to airbrush significant incidents out of a person's biography. The Argentina visit, where the twins were asked to leave the country by their own embassy, is of greater importance

1084:

to her notability, because it isn't. We'd have an article about her anyway. Perhaps the test itself is flawed, either by setting the bar too high or some other reason. In general once we decide a person should have a biography, we should include all relevant public verifiable information about the

978:

I made these changes in an effort to clarify, but they've been reverted. The edit comment makes no sense to me. Reliable news media always give their sources for notable or potentially controversial statements. The more reliable the media, the more likely that information they provide is sourced.

4023:

Knowledge (XXG) would currently like to pretend somebody doesn't exist, their existence can't be mentioned in related articles, and an article page may not be made regarding the person/event/situation. Oversight will also scrub their reference in related articles. In the interest of fair disclosure

3555:

Subject A has an area of notability. A is also a law officer or government agent working undercover. A's notability is not associated with their undercover work. Person X whom they are investigating went to the same college or university. If X makes the connection "Wait a minute, I went to Old Ivy

3533:

Moreover, even with my limited experience, I know that SOME Knowledge (XXG) editors and administrators do not approach such requests with the concerns and wellbeing of the subject foremost in their mind. They approach with the POV that Knowledge (XXG) can and will publish information unless there is

3493:

The things that are obviously relevant we remove immediately without discussion: dates of birth, names of children, address, phone number, email, exact location of workplace, and the like. We remove even birthyear and age of children on request, because of obvious risk factors. (Though of course for

3374:

Sure, but knowing the year of birth for an adult-- especially when it is available from the most obvious source on the internet, even more obvious for this person than Knowledge (XXG), detracts nothing from safety. All it usually detracts from vanity. If a person claimed that his safety requires the

3171:

has asked me to remove the year of his birth from his article, on advice from his legal counsel, due to identity theft issues he and his family suffered. The month and date of birth has already removed, and wanted to know if it's considered okay to remove the year too if the subject requests it. Any

2961:

According to the article Smeaton himself said, less than two weeks after the events: «Would you stop it with all this hero worship?». Harm comes from turning a short burst of public exposure by the media into a permenent one in here. Although the main point against it is that WP is not the news, and

2871:

We should not write news. News should go to Wikinews, not WP. Sure many prefer to write them here, for greater visibility, but if those went and wrote good news articles there both would improve. Wikinews would inherit some of the rather good news reports, and news writers we have at WP; and WP will

2816:

There should be limits to this practice. Specifically, there must be safeguards against the arbitrary removal of information on the personal whim of the article subject. I recall an instance where a writer, who is known under their real name but commonly uses initials in the style of "T. S. Eliot"

2543:

I'm not sure the reverse isn't true. Quite often, the short paragraph in the larger article will draw more eyeballs, whereas the permastub will sit forgotten. If and when the amount of source material increases over time (as, for a CEO, it generally will), it can always be split back out once it can

2296:

Section 5.1, Removal of sourced material if the person is non-notable is unnecessary--the place to deal with that is AfD. The result otherwise is simply the practice of removing what content there is from a borderline article, and then deleting it., This is something to be discourage--nay, rejected,

2129:

Fair enough - please edit the "suggested procedure" section to reflect what you think is most consistent with the ArbCom decision and reasonable practice. The problem is that, if the material has been deleted and has to stay deleted, non-admins simply can't view it - I can't see any way around that.

1995:

The presumption of privacy has been established by ArbCom as a principle. I don't particularly like it, but there's not much that can be done to change it. The aim of this guideline is to quantify exactly when it should apply, and what should be done, so that the whole thing dosen't get out of hand.

1672:

It may be in the spirit of "do no harm" to remove information about a criminal conviction from the biography of a rapist, but such an action indirectly causes harm to the victims. It may be in the spirit of the principle to remove information about a suspected fraud perpetrated by a person (assuming

1606:

The reason I wrote "uninvolved" admin was to ensure that two administrators who think alike on BLP (and hold views which are outside the general consensus) don't simply co-operate and decide what should be done, without consulting anyone else. I'm going to have to give examples here, and I apologise

1464:

I strongly support making some variant of "first do no harm" part of our rules. I've seen a few cases of BLP articles where criticism by political opponents is blown up into grossly exaggerated negative statements by opponents of the articles' subjects, with the precise aim of damaging the subjects'

575:

I think this is a very important point to consider. The test actually violates point three of the test in my mind. I think the test is sound, however the test should be based on a fictional situation. Even if the fictional situation used mimics a factual situation to some degree, or a combination of

229:"2. Is the information definitive and factual? Knowledge (XXG) is not in the business of speculation, or publishing dubious allegations, unless such allegations are notable in themselves. In particular, possibly false allegations that would harm an individual's life significantly should be avoided. 3600:

The article subject has on past occasions enlisted his students to be surrogate editors for him on this point. Seeing as it has come down to an edit war in an area that seems to be somewhat ill-defined, and for which not large numbers of other editors have expressed firm opinions, I'll keep out of

3342:

Thank you. I can understand that if subject Abc tells us a "fact" about themselves, including it without checking might bias the article to their POV. But in this case, it's not a matter of including possibly biased information. The request is to leave out birth year. This does not introduce bias.

3218:

elsewhere (and likely that's a matter of judgment, but so be it), then removing it here does no good to the subject and hurts the article. It seems to me that it needs to be demonstrated that a year of birth alone would be of any value in identity theft. Legal counsel can -- and usually will -- say

3122:

Information from tabloids and dubious websites is unreliable, and should be excluded on those grounds. Knowledge (XXG) is here to provide information, and one of the good things about Knowledge (XXG) is that it provides little known information - provided that it is reliable and relevant. There are

3000:

1)The whole of history is a news archive. 2)Why should someone have less rights and protections on wikipedia just because they are deemed Notable. 3)Perminent and public is the point of wikipedia 4)He has as much control as he needs; he can edit the article himself if needed or complain on the talk

2875:

We should not keep news archives. Just pasting several news articles side by side does not make it a encyclopedia article. An encyclopedia article should provide analysis of the subject not simply list reported facts. Sometimes this will fit the "no original research" policy, so we don't need a new

2701:

You've got it. In writing the encyclopedia we should not take it upon ourselves to consider whether omitting information for entirely encyclopedic reasons could possibly reduce the exposure of that name. Our purpose is to produce an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Our standards are different, and

2351:

A problem with this proposed guideline is that different editors have different opinions to what is considered harmful, especially when it comes to sourced materials. If preemptive removals are allowed, there can be many disputes coming up due to disagreements. I think that discussion should always

2194:

It doesn't contradict the policy. And it's needed because the "do no harm" provision in BLP is so broad and so subjective. The ArbCom has decreed that administrators can delete articles out-of-process, and keep them deleted, if they perceive any BLP concerns. This guideline is intended to make that

2049:

Yes, but just because admins are admonished to delete the articles in violation doesn't mean that the discussion should take place on the admin's noticeboard. Suggesting that deletion discussions per the BLP are solely the purview of admins is incorrect. Once a deletion to prevent possibly libelous

1476:

harm". If someone's arrest has been reported in nation-wide news media, we can report that arrest without doing any additional damage to that person. OTOH, if we report something embarrassing from a regional newspaper or specialist website, we're greatly amplifying the effect of that report ... and

1393:

That's really what the section on "Suggested procedure" is about - it basically says that if someone removes info from a BLP article, or an admin deletes such an article citing BLP concerns, they should discuss it, but (unlike in non-BLP cases) it is not appropriate to immediately revert them. Feel

789:

I agree with FloNight here (though I don't on the whole issue). For example, let's say some political intern is caught up in a political embezzlement scandal, but that's all we really know about them. If the scandal is notable and they're a key part of the incident, we should certainly mention them

382:

I think this is an excellent essay and could be very useful, but if I were Jenna Bush I wouldn't want this test named after me. To do so could publicize further her teenager goof, should this become a widely used essay or test, or should it receive mainstream news coverage. Would it be possible to

256:

It's not yet a guideline, so you can edit it if you feel it needs changes. In response to your other comments, in general all three criteria should apply. The only possible exception to the second criterion is where someone is notable primarily for allegations that have been made against them, e.g.

242:

Regarding the second, I suggest that if lack of either of the other two does not serve as sufficient cause to omit or delete something potentially harmful, then it should be separated from the other two and made a criterion in itself. Everything in the encyclopedia should ideally be "definitive and

191:, and to provide a general framework for applying BLP to specific cases. In the light of recent controversy, I think there's some value to having a framework of guidelines on biography-writing which have the widespread support of the community. Please modify the proposal as needed, or discuss here. 3975:

Knowledge (XXG) has an enforced and undocumented policy/non-disclosed guideline based on a Do No Harm concept despite it's documented rejection here. Information is suppressed to the point where nobody can see it was removed or contested. Suppression can and does take place on article pages about

3620:

Not that I necessarily think we need this statement at all, but at any rate the wording should be "relevant to the article",--otherwise it will typically exclude everything except the particular incidents that accounts for most of the notability--and articles are challenged because they include

3523:

The real point is, if someone requests that we not publish their alma mater (or their birth year, or if they wear a hearing aid, etc.) because of safety concerns, we as Knowledge (XXG) editors do not have the background information to judge whether there is a "real" issue or whether the request is

3438:

Here and in a similar discussion last month, it seems that I'm out of step with everyone else. Editors seem to opt for a position of: "analyse and discount the subject's concerns. we can publish what we want". Whether you and other editors would accept that characterization I don't know. That is

3108:

sources. Tabloids and websites of dubious quality are often well read, and only appearing in these sources is no reasons to keep out information because it would not be well known. Keep in mind that if this inclusion test becomes something of a standard biography information is checked against, it

3061:

Sometimes, a person becomes notable solely because inadvertent on their part, and without their consent, information they considered private was released into the public and widely enough reported to become notable. I would like to see discussion and policy about how Knowledge (XXG) should handle

2820:

It should be pointed out that the given name was printed in reliable sources and that the article subject had even been interviewed in a magazine about it, explaining that they simply disliked the name. Such a situation could not involve "harm" in any meaningful way, and I don't see why we should

2769:

Honestly, this seems like the first step in moving towards becoming Conservapedia. One of the great things about Knowledge (XXG) is that we can include information if it is sourced reliably, and this is an advantage we have over other forms of media. Knowledge (XXG) is not a tabloid, but Knowledge

1538:

Let's consider CWC's hypothetical example of an arrest reported only in a regional newspaper. Suppose that the person is notable but that, for whatever reason, the mainstream media have largely missed the story. Say, for example, that it was the Ravenel indictment, but that it received much more

908:

Rayc, although in principle I agree, I was trying (in writing this essay) to establish a fair compromise that would be acceptable to the ArbCom and to both sides in this dispute. Ideally, we would not give administrators the power to delete things off-the-cuff with vague reasons such as "per BLP".

880:

the material was removed. Either the reason for the deletion of the material or the article is stated in the edit summary, or should be discuss somewhere. The resent spree of "Deleted due to BLP" had neither, thus the outrage. It should be allowable to immediately restore material deleted due to

406:

I agree that the test is a good one (if, as I noted in my query, the criteria are clarified), that Jenna Bush could be an ideal example. However, I think Ned misses the point Jmh makes about how it is titled. A less pointed name might be appropriate; the subject is, after all, about avoiding harm.

4014:

One rationale cited by Wales, in complying with the Times's request, was the fact that the media blackout of the story, among major western/English-language news services at least, was relatively effective: "We were really helped by the fact that it hadn't appeared in a place we would regard as a

3011:

1)Pick an history book on a subject of your liking and compare. You'll see the obvious difference. 2)He doesn't. The point is that articles about "notable" people have facts to fill it up. These don't, except for one event, increasing largely the temptation to "fill it up". 3) and 4) So he should

2879:

I suppose many "potentially harmful" content comes from news sources. I guess all of you have eared / read conflicting reports in the news ('there were seven dead as a consequence of this incident', says one, 'five dead, one wounded', says another, etc....). That is, news reports are not reliable

2394:

I disagree. Discussion can take place before or after editing, and it is possible to link to before and after versions in the page history to illustrate any points that need to be made. If there is the possibility of harm, assume good faith on the part of the editor who removed it, engage them in

2092:

Like I said, I actually completely agree with you - controversial BLP deletions should, IMO, be discussed by the whole community at an AfD. However, the ArbCom (in the recent badlydrawnjeff arbitration case) declared completely the opposite. They endorsed out-of-process deletions of articles that

1442:

In principle I tend to agree with JamesMLane's comments above. However, it was clearly established by the ArbCom in the recent badlydrawnjeff arbitration case that the idea of "do no harm" will be actively enforced as a part of the BLP policy. As such, I felt that a clear guideline was needed for

921:

Coming back to Rayc's first point, if I may. I agree that the current essay doesn't clarify potential disagreements over sources. I see potential problems with #3 ("essential to her notability") and #1. A lot of the BLP debates on "talk pages" are over media coverage--how much coverage does it

238:

But, this isn't clear: If all three apply, then the information should be included; if none, then it should be removed. First, "included only in general terms" is in itself not a clear guideline, but what about a case in which -- forget about the second item in the list -- either the first or the

3996:

Prior to any references to the kidnapping being added to Rohde's article in Knowledge (XXG), a Times reporter, Michael Moss, made changes to the article to emphasize the work that Rohde had done, in such a way that Rohde would be seen by his captors as being sympathetic to Muslims. Subsequently,

3043:

is fine, and a bonus for a online encyclopedia, off course, given it is quite notable already and it's very unlikely the info to be false. That person X is reported to claim s/he is the girl/boyfriend of person Y is a quite different matter. 3,4)Off course not, but there is a greater chance that

2853:

is «a Nigerian schoolboy who died in the UK». Is *that* a reason to write an article about someone?? Certainly not. And then the article is all about court cases about his death, proving so. This is good example of a pseudo-biography, precisely something this proposal aims against. Likewise with

2641:

on Knowledge (XXG) is unlikely to do serious harm, since no one can reasonably rely on Knowledge (XXG) being complete. Our task is not to "warn" anyody of "bad guys" - that's a task we could not reliably fulfill anyway. Having objectionable content on Knowledge (XXG) however, even if for a short

2500:

Absolutely. Incompleteness alone is never enough. Other considerations include whether it can be demonstrated that completeness is either not desirable (due weight, of little interest to the reader), not possible (obscure sources, missing sources, privacy), or simply not yet achieved (no-one has

1688:

I don't forsee a circumstance in which removing a criminal conviction from the biography of a rapist would occur, as it would pass the inclusion test; however, publishing the name of the victim would directly cause harm, and would not be included unless it was a much-publicized case which freely

1595:

But this brings me to the final point: I don't think this kind of event is likely to occur often, and when it does I think we can rely on the deleting administrator to be sensible. It's more important to ensure that other administrators don't abuse their tools. We should probably focus on this

1409:

Despite its title, the proposal talks mostly about verifiability and notability. Those are valid concerns. If those concerns are met, however, there's no reason for us to suppress information of encyclopedic quality just because someone will be upset at its inclusion or will claim to have been

737:

I sure wouldn't mind seeing the Pokecruft gone either (and indeed, a lot of it is being merged, an action which I applaud and wholeheartedly support), but I don't see that as an issue towards "avoiding harm" per se, though I do see it as an issue with having decent inclusion/exclusion standards.

3714:

A living biographical article subject is opposed to his year of birth appearing in his Knowledge (XXG) article and has multiple times instructed persons who work for him to remove the information. The year of birth is well-sourced and appears in library catalogs alongside the subject's name in

3112:

While the paragraph itself is confusing, the intention is clear: information that is not widely known should not be included in articles about living persons. I disagree with this intention, because it is defeats Knowledge (XXG)'s aims. Before continuing, please note that the argument below has

1974:

The policy states that when someone's name has been removed for privacy reasons, there is a presumption in favor of privacy for semi-notable individuals. This is not a policy I believe should be used. Why should editors err on the side of censorship? If the author can provide reliable public

460:

on this one issue, because that is the relevant example. It is not a matter of undue weigh, because people are not coming to his page to learn about Jenna Bush. It's obvious that this is just one event in a person's life, and not in any way a summary of their life. Stop making a big deal out of

2657:

policy, that would prevent people putting whatever information they want about a con artist in newspapers, on noticeboards, in television and radio programs, in books, periodicals, letters, forum websites, blogs, Usenet, Fax messages, telephone calls, telex, pigeon post, telegraph, semaphore,

2565:

One thing this page doesn't address is cases when "do no harm" is a two-edged sword. For con artists removal of an article can harm the potential future victims of the con artist (scammer, crook, etc...). Indeed, harm to the con artist from having an article is the direct consequence of harm

2011:

The guideline for admins to delete the article and then note they did so on the administrator's noticeboard is, in my opinion, an inappropriate circumvention of the standard deletion process. It would completely exclude regular users from participating in the discussion by resting "do no harm"

1382:

If BLP is about preventing libel and legal problems, it is easy to tell whether an article or section violates BLP. But if BLP is about preventing harm, then it is not so easy to tell whether an article or section violates BLP. This idea is good, so people know what is harm and what is not. If

1650:

Your example of JzG and Doc confirms my worst fears: you singled out two administrators with similar views and falsely described them as "involved". This is why we must not use that term. Indeed we should probably avoid the very concept because if it can be abused in that way it is tainted.

1252:

as a private individual. This is stretching the meaning of the term "private individual" to include a person who has given interviews and photshoots in Vogue, has gone on the campaign trail as a star attraction, and has appeared in nationally screen promotionals for her father's Presidential

1099:

as a private individual. With her sister, she has made public appearances at Republican conventions, toured swing states during the 2004 Presidential campaign, and even appeared in Vogue with her father. There's more, but that should make my point. The proposed test is not well thought out.

948:

Feel free to edit it for writing style - I freely admit that I tend to be unnecessarily verbose. :-) As to your other point, yes, you're right that criterion 1 is ambiguous. Ordinarily I dislike using subjective terms such as "widely-known", but what I was trying to get across here is that we

937:

for a bio of her anymore than a bio should become a coat-rack for someone who had a video on YouTube that got a lot of hits. The Jenna Bush entry is not a coat-rack entry, and it does make a good example because it is neutrally written and does not sensationalize the incident, but the stated

366:

Yes but placing that there means in all cases when information on convictions is added, the supporters of whoever will claim its not notable, thus long revert war starts. If you can find it in a high quality source then it is notable enough. This just seems a way of white washing wikipedia of

2770:(XXG) is also not censored, and we shouldn't cover up grisly details if they are relevant and sourced properly just so that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't face a lawsuit. In fact, this is almost contradictory with the original aims of building an encyclopedia from a neutral point of view.-- 957:

who have done the "harm"; in that situation, our obligation to keep entries neutral and balanced compels us to include the information. On the other hand, if we pick up something that was reported by one cheap tabloid on a slow news day and splash it around the Internet, then we are actively

952:

With regard to the "tendency of some forms of media to sensationalize", that is indeed an important aspect of the disputes over BLP - and that's exactly why this test is needed. Our policy is, where possible, to do no harm, but also to create a factual and balanced encyclopedia. As such, if

576:

factual situations, this would only draw attention to the subjects if the person reading the test already knew, therefore not bring further undue weight. If you were reading it and knew nothing about the factual situation used to create the fictional situation, you would be none the wiser.

2168:

I note that private or non-persistent communications, in any fora (IRC, email, telephone, face to face, etc...), are inherently private. They can't create consensus among anyone not a party to those conversations, and can't demonstrate consensus. If only one individual has concerns, such

3126:

Finally, I would suggest splitting up the second clause into two, one about information that is not definitive, yet appears in reliable sources (speculation on sports in reliable sports newspapers happens often) and one about unreliable sources (tabloids and the like). This would keep the

2093:

were perceived by an admin to be non-BLP-compliant, and sanctioned those who restored such articles. As such, it's not this guideline that's wresting the process of deletion away from the community; the ArbCom's already done that. We're trying to develop a coherent process for such cases.

2067:

You still haven't satisfied me as to what strong reason there is for wresting the entire deletion process from the hands of the collective body of editors and placing it solely in the hands of admins. I will continue to oppose this proposed policy entirely unless there is some reason that

1127:

Please refrain from imputing openly stated rationale with hidden political meanings. Just for the record, as I am one who has opposed the naming of the example the "Jenna Bush test," I've never voted Republican in my life, and I have extreme negative feelings towards both Presidents

1019:

Thanks--good job working those points in. The words independent or third party or verifiable are also important, because sometimes mainstream sources will simply quote another source, passing the harm buck, so to speak. I think Knowledge (XXG) should have a higher standard. Thanks.

1414:

asserts that the publication of his indictment harmed him, he's probably correct, but that's just too bad. He was an elected State Treasurer and the information is verifiable. The reference to "harm" doesn't add anything useful to the other criteria and is potentially confusing.

2883:

Yes, I know this proposal points to those policies and more (BLP,NPOV,...). But do we need a new policy saying to respect other policies? Or do we simply need to respect (or add to, or change) the exist ones? I go for respect established policies, there's no need for a new one.

3857:

As far as I can interpret it, it's only in exceptional circumstances where privacy has been breached. As such, I don't see how this differs from IAR, although I suppose technically it should be bounced up to the oversighters for their input as well as discussed between sysops.

775:

The exact opposite it often true. For non-public people that are only notable for a single event, we are not able to write comprehensive biographies about them. Including only information about this single aspect of their life gives undue weight to that event so violates

2506:

company and then another company, both of which should have articles themselves), then the case for a separate article becomes more convincing. The information could still be contained in short paragraphs at Company 1 and Company 2, but combining them makes more sense.

3774:

Sebwite, I'd like to strongly recommend against suggesting this page as a proposal. For one thing, it died as a proposal a couple of years ago, and since then, our official policy on the subject of BLPs has moved further and further away from the advice given here.

1513:; he's a prominent public figure, the information was widely publicised in the mainstream media and is verifiable, and it's a major part of his notability." I agree with that comment. My question is about the flip side: In the case of , the information about would 1451:; he's a prominent public figure, the information was widely publicised in the mainstream media and is verifiable, and it's a major part of his notability. Basically, I agree that "do no harm" is confusing; that's why this guideline attempts to clarify what it means. 3403:

Thank you. I agree there is room for skepticism about the risk caused by publicizing a birth year. But I don't know the person's circumstances and I assume you don't either. Maybe there is a significant reason for concern. Maybe it is an irrational phobia. We don't

1791:

I won't contest your removals - you're right that it's important for a guideline not to read like a binding policy - but I think we may need to work the two-admin thing into it somewhere, even if not as a "rule". I'll try to come up with some compromise wording.

3666:? Sources become "unreliable" simply because someone believes there is "harm"? Notable material becomes un-notable simply because someone believes there is "harm"? What's really striking is that NPOV, reliably sourced, notable edits can be reverted by citing 2718:

GRBerry, I highly doubt that we'd remove relevant well founded information about a convicted fraud. Removing unencyclopedic information is another matter. We might for instance omit his family details, because of the obvious harm it could do to his children.

1706:

harm". In many cases, it is impossible to do absolutely no harm. Although the guideline does not insist on "no harm", I'd prefer to see any mention of "do no harm" removed or replaced with a formulation that doesn't require (even implicitly) the impossible. --

2072:

of the discussion of "do no harm" deletions should be handled by admins. Even with this new page, the definition of what exactly falls under "do no harm" is extremely vague, if you doubt my word, just take a look at some of the recent AFD's proposed under it.

3001:

page or at the BLP notice board. 5)Its not an invasion of privacy if it is sourced to reputable sources. 6)Its not my fault one of kennedy's best mates was accused of killing him and no-one bothered to check that fact, we have much stronger BLP rules now.

3719:

as the basis of removal of this information. I brought the matter up some time ago on BLP and the response there was that a well-sourced birth year was fundamental biographical information and was not subject to removal for privacy concerns. Thoughts?

868:

Some thoughts on the essay. First off, there might be some disagreement over what is "numerous" sources. Some may think that this goes beyond the requirement of "multiple" sources for normal material. I would change that to read in the same way that

2944:

people do try and will continue to try, and calm patient defense of the individual articles is the only way to deal with it. But what BLP or Avoid Harm has to do with this particular article, I dont know. Everything is a/ sourced and b/ laudatory.

2352:

come first, before removal of sourced content. The discussion should also focus on whether the sources are authoritative enough (e.g. Whether they are tabloids etc), since some good-selling papers and magazines often blow things out of proportion.--

320:

The notability issue is exactly what i'm against. Because what is notable is just some-ones POV. We are an encyclopedia and our job is to provide information, what crimes someone has committed is important info about that person. I agree that only

2153:

So far, the main area of contention seems to concern the section on out-of-process deletions of BLP articles. Some argue that such discussions should be discussed privately by e-mail, others prefer them to be discussed transparently on-wiki or at

3113:

nothing to do with reliability. It only applies to those specific cases where information has been published in an reliable (per the usual standards) source, yet it is not widely known. Consider the case of an article on a (notable) biologist in

3103:

The main issue with the schematic argument above is that it does not support the title of the clause, which leads the reader to believe that the information should be widely known. This is unlike the second sentence, which is an argument against

2658:

heliograph, sky writing or smoke signal. Not having a Knowledge (XXG) article about a con man, even if it were supported by the BLP (and I am dubious about the reasoning that it would be) would not stop his foul deeds being widely publicised. --

2169:

communications can settle that individual's concern. But if several private communications with different individuals start happening, it is time to seek community discussion in a transparent and persistent media and really evaluate consensus.

2751:

Putting aside the issue of the validity of such an approach, such cases are better handled on a case-by-case basis. A general policy prescription is undesirable as it could not possible account for the varying circumstances of individual cases.

2297:

and treated as vandalism. There is a justification for removing irrelevant content when used to simply bulk up an irrelevant article--to talk about someone's pets at length, for example. But this part of the guideline should be firmly rejected.

3291:

If someone tells Knowledge (XXG) that having their birth year in an article is putting them at risk, why are we second guessing them and their lawyer? Take it out. Having the article without this information is a very minor matter, isn't

1985:

A name recorded in some public source somewhere isn't the same breach of privacy as a name recorded on a top ten website. In the case of a private individual, the corresponding intrusion is not justified if we don't need to use the name.

1673:

it's supported by reliable sources) from their biography, but that removal harms those who have or might fall victim to the scam. Removing a negative bit of information from the biography of politicians harms the politicians' opponents.

243:

factual" even if it's hard to ascertain. The other two criteria notwithstanding, if something is potentially harmful to the reputation of a living individual it seems doubly important that this criterion be as absolute as possible.

2464:

I expect the bulk of the article to be about his military and political life, not his hobbies, family life, or religion. For less famous people, such as lesser-known Fortune 500 CEOs, these do not even need to be in the article.

4116:

about “extraneous biographical material” intended to apply to biographical information within an article about an event? Or, is it about a common characteristic of pseudo biography articles that probably shouldn’t be articles?

1075:

I don't think Jenna Bush is a good example. Point 3 of the proposed test is "Is the information essential to the subject's notability?" and the information cited here is her under-aged drinking. While I think this information

1668:

First, kudos to Walton and everyone else who worked on making this page more than a subjective moral code of conduct. However, I wish to raise a general question regarding the "do no harm" principle. Do no harm ... to whom?

949:

shouldn't publicise a piece of personal information that's only appeared in one tabloid or local newspaper; on the other hand, if something's been widely reported across mainstream media outlets, we can justify including it.

1928:

concerns" is non-aggressive but clear. "NO", "We don't need this garbage", and the like are aggressive, confrontational, and unnecessary—and in relation to BLP concerns, I've seen a lot more like the second then the first.

1975:

sources that identify an individual, as required by the inclusion test, isn't it already public knowledge? I would argue the inclusion test alone is sufficient for Knowledge (XXG)'s purposes, without a bias for privacy.

3320:

Indeed, IMDB does not properly confirm its content. Now if a reliable source can be found that is another story. Oh and Wanderer, we do need to second guess the subject of the article and their lawyer, NPOV requires it.

2337:), and making dubious policy on the other. Unfortunately, many separate policy issues are interwoven in this document in such a way that makes it difficult to discuss their individual ramifications with proper scrutiny. 4015:

reliable source. I would have had a really hard time with it if it had." He praised the assistance provided by Knowledge (XXG) editors: "I'm really proud of the Wikipedians who made this happen, maybe saved his life."

3301:

If the information is in IMDB, that is between them and IMDB. If IMDB keeps the info because it is in Knowledge (XXG), and Knowledge (XXG) keeps the info because it is in IMDB, that puts the subject into a stalemate.

2434:

I recommend that images of living persons, who have stated that they do not want their image placed on wikipedia, and where good reason exists that the image may defame them, should be removed from wikipedia servers.

962:

harm. The aim of the Jenna Bush test is to differentiate between those two situations; it's subjective to some extent because this is a fairly subjective field of policy, and editors have to exercise some judgment.

2399:

discuss it with them, or explain that discussion is not appropriate. Of course, this does not apply to deletion of articles, which is why I've always favoured page blanking, discussion, then (if needed) deletion.

2738:"If they're notable only in connection with a single event, redirect their name to the page on that event. If the page on the event was deleted or would likely be deleted, they DEFINITELY don't need a biography" 2366:

to be removed right away. A lot of articles, while somewhat negative or borderline whatever, have been up for a long time, and it realistically doesn't hurt to keep it up for a discussion about the article. --

1620:

The idea I think, would be not to actually have these two admins discussing things on a talk page, but for admin 1 to leave a message on admin 2's talk page, saying "I deleted this - <insert redlink here:

269:, but that's a separate issue). But you're right, I need to clear up the wording to make it less ambiguous. (Bear in mind, this essay has only existed for less than 2 days and isn't honed to perfection yet.) 1469:

part of NOR, but that section necessarily has enough leeway that they can get away with it.) If we're going to be an encyclopedia that deserves any respect, then we need an additional rule along these lines.

1111:

Many people would argue that it is relevant to her notability, but I do see your point. Another example might also be good to just to avoid arguments that are driven by people's personal political views. --

2380:

Yup. I think policies should be written to minimize the probability of conflicts in carrying them out. Had things been discussed thoroughly before any action is taken, there could be better harmony in the

1061:. Just the kind of thing that this essay is meant to discourage. (I was about to close that AfD as Delete, since it's expired, but having mentioned it here, I should probably leave it for someone else.) 1845:

use of email wherever possible in the case of the BLP. Review is important, but using a wiki to review cases sensitive enough for deletion is nearly always inappropriate when email is easily available.

435:, reduce Jenna's notability to a single event and place undue emphasis on that event, thereby potentially causing her harm...in an essay and potential guideline that seeks to clarify "avoiding harm"! - 891:

Sometimes the precise reason cannot be discussed openly. It isn't okay to undo a BLP deletion without consensus--that's a ticket to arbitration and (in especially egregious cases) desysopping. It is

821:

Exactly! Very good examples. :-) My main concern for BLP is non-public people. Public people have so much written about them that we can almost always do a fair job of discussing the good and the bad.

3597:

Relevant to this discussion, an anonymous editor credibly claiming to be the subject of a BLP article has removed his year of birth and said he will delete the article if the information is re-added.

1383:

someone deleted info or an article because of BLP concerns, and you think the info or article does not violate BLP, what can you do? Where can you discuss? Maybe you could add a section about that. --

1147:

What the heck?... I wasn't talking about you or anyone else on this talk page. Obviously the arguments about the test's name are not politically driven, and I certainly have not thought they were. --

4082:. Can someone provide the link to this rejection and the NPOV discussion? If the "principle" was rejected it conflicts with content in the "Neutral point of view" and "Ethics and consensus" sections. 2468:

For living persons, sometimes a limited whitewash is in order. An article on George Bush does not need to mention every one of his youthful indiscretions, even if every one of them can be sourced.

2223: 689:! Of course, you're welcome to submit your findings to media outlets in that case. If they do subsequently note it, it may then (but only then) become notable enough to include in Knowledge (XXG). 169: 2333:

This proposed guideline is too long and too prescriptive. The text alternates between being blindingly obvious on the one hand (saying things that really ought to be covered under the rubric of

606:

Though I'll make a few minor copyedits here, I think this is an excellent proposal and pretty closely captures a standard which I believe will be acceptable to those on both sides of the issue.

2985:

As I said, the harm issue is secondary here. This is (was) news, WP is not the news, nor a news archive IMO. As to the harm, can't you see any dangers in picking up commom people and making a

2934:

Now you try and foist this rubish off as a policy, stop it! most editors outside of the extremist deletionists don't want this essay. Remember "YOU CAN'T DELETE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA INTO EXISTENCE"

3248:

When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth.

1837:

trust groups of admins to discuss a sensitive deletion. If any more discussion is required, and appropriate, it can take place at deletion review. The suggestion that use of email should be

685:. If the NYT, USA Today, and several scholars have written about something, it's very likely notable. If it takes you digging through primary records to find it, it's not notable, because it 4058:(full disclosure, I was a delete voter). Now another editor has added in the campaign finance thing. Entry's creator deleted that in its entirety. More input would be very much appreciated! 2868:

The issue, in my opinion, is: should we care about "doing no harm"? No! We should care about writing good *encyclopedia* articles. That should take care of excluding most "harmful" content.

4055: 661:

information. I can tell you that I had baked salmon for dinner last night. That's information, but it's not appropriate information for an encyclopedia, and we certainly shouldn't go write

4180: 2667:

Once again, we are an ENCYCLOPEDIA! Our job is to provide sourced and verifable information! It is not possible to delete our way to that end. As i say this is obviously just a front for

1443:

application of BLP, to ensure that this situation does not lead to wholesale deletion of content and revert wars, and to strike a balance between transparency and privacy. In the case of

876:

Second, the recent fighting going on was not against the application of BLP, but the vagueness over the reasons. Saying (deleting temporarily per WP:BLP, will discuss) does not indicate

136: 1050: 3421:

We are looking at a tradeoff between a) Knowledge (XXG) lacking a few bytes of information and b) the (perhaps small) risk that we are doing serious harm by including the information.

1297:) should be deleted to avoid her name being forever associated with this "test" in the minds of many Wikipedians. I'm going to ask the creator to nominate it for deletion. Please use 2642:

time, can cause serious harm, since the visibility and influence of Knowledge (XXG) has reached an enourmous level. So we need some means of removing questionable content quickly. --

2544:

reach the length of a real article. Until then, though, "X is the CEO of Y" is better suited to the company article—"The current CEO of the company is X", with X as a redirect to Y.

873:

reads, so that we don't seem like we have two levels of verifiability. We should have one uniform level of verifiability for all facts. Making a new level just weakens the first.

830:

I think there's general consensus on that point; the difficulty is determining what constitutes a "public" vs a "non-public" individual, and it seems that the existing guidelines at

3469:

P.S. "If a person claimed that his safety requires the concealment of where he went to college, would we honor that?" The concern might be very real. WOULD we honour the request?

1776:

I like the work so far, but I would argue against including "rules" such as the "two-admin rule", etc. That is better left for policy pages and will require substantial discussion.

2184:

Where is the rationale that this is needed in the slightest, given that BLP exists? This is simply going to create a potential diversion and area of contradiction with the policy.

2887:

The only novelty here looks like "when in doubt of notoriety (etc.) then 'do no harm'". Agreed. But that's not much more than a paragraph to BLP and/or Notoriety (Biographies) -

1220:

In essence, then, the main point you disagree with is the third Jenna criterion - "Is the information essential to the subject's notability?". I see your point here; we probably

356:

be a matter of POV in borderline cases, but it's agreed that because Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, there have to be standards for what kind of information can be included.

1726:

Good point from you as well. The proposed guideline is called "avoiding harm," which is a good choice of words. I agree that the "do no harm" phrasing could be problematic. -

3119:- most of those who are familiar with the biologist will not know the information in that article, detailing his experience with genetics, which as not appeared anywhere else. 4085: 2413:

However, if an action is contraversial, suspicions may often be raised and it would be very difficult to assume the good faith. Being bold does not equate to being reckless,

646:

Yes now we are removing sourced info, of course using the magic incantation of BLP. WHY are we removing sourced info from an encyclopedia, our job is to PROVIDE information.

239:

third apply but not both? This guideline doesn't help for such cases which seem at least as likely to come up as those in which either all three apply or none of the three.

3976:

the person/event, and also if related articles reference the material/topic/subject/name as well. If the person's name is used in article titles from reliable news sources,

3580:

In either of these cases, the reason the subject wants information kept private is sensitive enough that they don't want to disclose it, or it would be illegal to do so.

1702:

Point taken. I agree that it's better to have a consensus-supported guideline for a subjective concept like "harm" and suppose my real problem is with the phrasing of "do

3778:

Second, we shouldn't have two pages that govern BLP content, so if there's any part of it you feel should be an actual rule, I recommend you pitch the specifics over at

235:"If all of these apply, then it is reasonable for the information to be included. If none of them apply, then it should be removed, or included only in general terms." 3814:

Currently, this page suggests that administrators who find coatrack articles (and such) should delete first and ask questions later, maybe even asking those questions

2270:

How about "extended period of time"? I think that encapsulates the intent of the guideline - you're right that we can't be too specific, as each case is individual.

2594:

The expression "do no harm" comes from the medical profession. Doctors do not make a judgement on their patients' beneficial or harmful contributions to society.

1253:

campaigns. I don't think that's at all accurate. Jenna Bush is about as far from a private individual as it is possible for a person to be outside Hollywood. --

4190: 3644:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#the_slippery_slope_of_having_a_.22distress.22_policy_over_and_above_a_reliable_source_policy

2236: 1585:

afterwards, to the full extent that such discussion is compatible with the reason for deletion. Email discussion should be preferred for sensitive deletions.

3694:

However, insofar as I grasp your argument, you seem to downplay the importance of the policies wp:harm and wp:blp. Do you really consider them unimportant?

2118:

that administrators were strongly advised to perform, not the entirety of the discussion/decision-making process. That's what I'm saying is unprecendented.

762:. You can just delete info because its not nice about someone or they might get pissed that the truth is being told about them, that clearly violates npov. 297:

Why? This is sourcable factual information and we are an encyclopedia not a PR company. This info will often inform about the character of the individual.

99: 1197:

to it. For instance the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart is essential to her notability because nobody would have heard of her if she hadn't been kidnapped.

265:, known for being a suspect in the ongoing Ipswich murder investigations (although in such cases we need to carefully avoid writing pseudo-biographies or 2222:

to be redirected to their more prominent relatives due to issues related to this essay. If anyone here would like to weigh in, pro or con, please do so:

3689:

Hi Bdel555: You write in a very "telegraphic" style which I find difficult to follow. I don't know if anyone else has that problem. Maybe it is just me.

3243: 3073: 2654: 188: 146: 2195:

process less about a subjective view of ethics, and to provide a clear outline of when this should be done and what procedures should be followed. And

3830:, which states that essays should not contradict widespread consensus, lest they be moved to userspace. I suggest removing the offending section. -- 929:

However, nonetheless, the Jenna Bush article does contain such information. As such, the Jenna Bush test can be applied to other parallel situations.

4124: 4003:

to repeatedly edit the article to remove all references to the kidnapping, and prevent already published information from being further disseminated.

933:

I think the Bush entry is well-chosen because it does handle BLP issues well. The simple fact of her underage drinking incident shouldn't become a

662: 3621:

nothing else of significance. The background of person is usually of considerable significance to the article, though not literally "essential".

3193:

From a strictly technical point of view, I think that the year of birth alone will be a very little use to someone trying to steal an identity.

1293:, as I agree with the concerns of others above. We shouldn't be naming our internal redirect shortcuts after people, so 'WP:JENNA' (redirect is 1211:

because it involved the US Diplomatic Corps and the Secret Service, and possibly the Argentine authorities, in a very embarrassing situation. --

738:

However, there is not much risk that we will harm a Pokemon. When we're dealing with the biography of a living person, however, we must embrace

3569:

Subject B is in witness protection. ANY information about their previous place of residence, family, college, place of work, etc. is sensitive.

2923: 2778: 2016:

of the article if its content violates the BLP, and then bring it up as a regular AFD with a link to a sandbox version of the article viewable

1348:

to invite further discussion. Although the wording may need tweaking, I think we've more or less reached consensus on most of the points here.

2036:

permitted to delete articles on sight when they perceive an issue with BLP. The aim of this guideline is to quantify and limit that practice.

715: 4185: 2032:

In principle I agree, blanking would be preferable. However, the ArbCom seems to have rejected this idea, and mandated that administrators

108: 3242:

considered an unreliable source. Birth year is usually considered something to be kept, even in the face of identity-theft concerns. See

995:. As to recentism (sorry I referred to "immediatism" in the summary, I got my terms mixed up), I've inserted wording to guard against it 798:

notable, we certainly can include negative information regarding them provided that it is already public knowledge and reliably sourced.

2799:

Wow, I come back to see how Knowledge (XXG) is doing after my break and find that it's in the process of destroying itself. Tremendous.

1574:

be described as involved. Best to remove it all together. The important point, I thought, was that the decision to delete be shared.

810:

biographies, and cover far more aspects of those people's lives than involvement in one negative incident. That's the difference here.

3494:

some people, all this is widespread public knowledge & even part of their PR.) Can you explain a hypothetical case for the above?

2872:

be more of an encyclopedia. That is, what is needed is to really use an existent policy, "WP is not the news", not to make a new one.

2903:

This man has received widespread media attention for a month, but is now finally back to his day job. The article as it stands fails

618:

Also added a section on pseudo-biographies and some suggestions for handling them, I think that's been the main core of the problem.

2859: 372: 338: 302: 3997:

reports of the kidnapping, which began on the following day, were removed by Michael Moss and some Knowledge (XXG) administrators.

3953:

is a guideline and has a link to PSEUDO. Is it okay for a guideline to refer to an essay as though the essay is equally official?

953:

information about someone's private life has already been reported in lurid detail by the media across several countries, it's the

2880:

sources - note: analyses published in (reliable) media are. And we have a policy for "reliable sources", we don't need a new one.

881:

BLP without a reason given in the edit summary or the talk page, otherwise vandals and POV pushers will try to game the system. --

3062:

identifying such individuals especially if they are minors, and whether Knowledge (XXG) should honor their requests for privacy.

1547: 1423: 758:"not try to do it at all" is going to have to be the answer as any page edited under this suggestion would violate a real policy 3950: 592: 1301:

instead. I've also inserted an anchor tag so that this redirect will work regardless of what the section is eventually called.

3662:

if a NPOV, reliably sourced, notable article cannot be left alone. Why can't it be left alone? Because it "harms" someone?

69: 44: 3908:. And the rest of the time, we can calmly discuss the issue in a standard AfD (or for simple matters, a PROD would suffice; 3867: 2897: 1756: 1489: 1328: 2603:

Doctors pursue the interests of their patients; it would constitute a serious violation of NPOV if we were to do the same.

2050:

material from being viewed in mainspace is carried out, there is no reason to discourage regular users from participating.

1858:

One thing that also strikes me as a strange is the suggestion of a "non-aggressive" edit summary. What does that mean? --

3929: 3843: 3601:

it and trust that the article (and the general rule) will eventually evolve in the right direction, whatever that may be.

3092:

argument against the clause in general, I will briefly dissect the paragraph, to show in what way it does not make sense.

2484: 77: 3823: 2458:

An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's life

1924:

Still, one can use a non-aggressive deletion summary, even if it says nothing about provisional. "Deleted article due to

1566:

I replaced the word "uninvolved" with "other" in the Two admin rule. It is difficult to describe an admin as "involved"

665:, even if there were some source that could confirm it. And since we (quite correctly, in my view) are forbidden to make 4051: 3139: 1525:. If there is no such case, then the test is pointless. If there is such a case, can someone give me an example of it? 925:

I don't want to edit this for fear of changing your intended meaning, but these sentences badly need a stylistic fix:

3819: 1168:

Sorry if I misunderstood your comment about avoiding arguments that are driven by people's personal political views. -

112: 1592:

deletion (and in my experience this has always happened with such deletions). This is always good as a sanity check.

587: 4151: 2915:. I'd like other opinions as to what we should do with this page. Also see my comments on the article's talk page.-- 4024:

of their conduct and undocumented policy of suppression/censorship based on this rejected do no harm policy please

2519:

I'm not sure about that: a short article invited expansion in a way that a paragraph in a larger article does not.

262: 3999:

The Times also approached Knowledge (XXG)'s co-founder Jimmy Wales for assistance in enforcing the media blackout.

165: 2488: 1125:

He didn't say it wasn't relevant to her notability; he said it was not essential. Two very different meanings.

712: 344:

No, the term "notable" isn't necessarily a POV; we have guidelines about what is notable and what isn't, namely

4030:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guideline_for_crime_victims_of_world_wide_significance

4078:

The lead, concerning "Do no harm", states the "principle was ultimately rejected" and found incompatible with

3892:, but they are extremely rare and exist primarily for legal considerations. Moreover, they tend to produce a 3514:

I can think of cases where the college that someone went to is sensitive information. I'll put them in below.

2159: 2037: 2020:(or some other mechanism for being able to view the content without a possible violation being in mainspace). 1997: 1887: 1806: 1793: 1608: 1452: 1395: 1349: 1312: 1265: 1240: 1229: 1062: 999: 964: 910: 846: 630: 486:

I am taking about the proposed use as a guideline or policy, not the existence of the proposal on this page. -

357: 311: 283: 270: 192: 50: 2338: 806:

is notable, so we include information about the Lewinsky scandal in his biography. But those articles really

257:

as a suspect in a crime; in such cases, it needs to be sourced to the mainstream media and clearly marked as

4145: 2439: 2158:. The idea of blanking/soft deletion has also been proposed. Suggestions for a compromise would be helpful. 1344:

If no one objects, I will tag this as a proposed guideline, and list it at the Community bulletin board and

1871:, or words to that effect. Rather, an edit summary should emphasise the fact that the information is being 4063: 4036: 3961: 3800: 3658:, then any problem articles should be covered off by reference to those policies. This policy only has a 2720: 2659: 2460:: When writing biographies, it is important to focus on what the subject is known for. When I read about 1987: 1916: 1859: 1652: 1597: 1254: 1212: 1101: 1086: 896: 553: 408: 308:

Sorry, you're right - I didn't clarify what I meant. I've rewritten that portion of the essay to clarify.

247: 2668: 834:

are not always clear enough for BLP purposes. One of my main intentions with this essay (especially with

327:

should be used to say these covictions exist, but i think if these sources exist this information should

293:

information about an individual's criminal record should not be included in their Knowledge (XXG) article

3643: 3177: 3026: 3002: 2976: 2935: 2917: 2790: 2772: 2672: 1394:

free to edit this to make it clearer - I know the guideline is somewhat verbose and unclear at present.

1046: 763: 727: 647: 368: 334: 298: 3779: 2912: 2862:. Again this is a good example of "write about the event, not the person", not of a notable biography. 1058: 266: 201: 3322: 3194: 282:

that section to clarify what was meant. Feel free to edit it if you feel it still doesn't make sense.

4135: 3757: 3725: 3699: 3606: 3585: 3474: 3444: 3357: 3307: 2685: 1596:

latter problem, if only because it was the main problem identified in the recent arbitration case. --

1544: 1420: 709: 3655: 2196: 670: 4161: 3610: 3439:

how it comes across. I find it very worrying, and contrary to the main thrust of the BLP policy.

3181: 3115: 702:

If the NYT, USA Today, and several scholars have written about something, it's very likely notable.

4154:. Since both this page and that page seem rather inactive, we'll probably need more notification. 4113: 3905: 3889: 3827: 2908: 1752: 1570:

to an unannounced deletion, but it's my feeling that any admin who agrees to such a deletion will

104: 3863: 3679: 2742: 2702:

we should never be ashamed that we do not cover every single detail mentioned in every newspaper.

2643: 2545: 1930: 1434: 1384: 811: 747: 690: 619: 607: 3897: 3877: 3815: 2904: 2334: 2012:

deletions solely in the hands of admins. I suggest changing the guideline to advise a temporary

1867:

An example is given of an appropriately non-aggressive edit summary. An aggressive one would be

1466: 1465:

reputation, without violating policies like NPOV, RS, etc. (The smearers do have to violate the

3057:

Would like to see discussion and policy about those put in the public eye without their consent

4059: 4032: 3957: 3924: 3838: 3796: 3789: 3255: 3224: 3153: 2754: 2616: 2605: 2595: 2480: 2472:

an office that makes him notable. Instead, interested editors should expand these articles.

2461: 1709: 1678: 549: 4079: 3716: 3667: 3647: 2414: 1522: 1510: 1448: 1345: 1298: 1290: 1224:

still have an article on Jenna if it weren't for the underage drinking incident, as we do on

1042: 934: 835: 777: 759: 425: 4144:(In the small case of anyone needing further clarity, if the answer is the former, the edit 4097: 4050:

Hi, if anyone's watching this talk page, we could use some input on a BLP harm question at:

3884:

sorts of things (housekeeping and such). And a closed deletion discussion is fundamentally

3826:. Since the policy is presumed to have widespread consensus, that puts this essay afoul of 3544:

examples by saying they are unlikely situations. The point is, they are possible situations.

3173: 3136: 3063: 2858:, since there is no biography about her other then a short section in the article about her 2855: 1581:

deletion. This seems wrong. Of course the deleting admin should discuss the deletion with

3909: 3671: 1925: 1876: 895:

inappropriate to refer to Knowledge (XXG) administrators as "vandals" and "POV pushers". --

831: 666: 349: 4132: 3753: 3721: 3695: 3602: 3581: 3470: 3440: 3353: 3303: 2850: 2682: 2507: 2401: 2319: 2282: 2271: 2240: 2200: 2131: 2094: 1819: 1781: 1623: 1577:

However I then notice that the two admin rule counsels discussion with at least one admin

1540: 1416: 1359: 1358:

Wider exposure will be good, and further changes may be needed, but no objection from me.

1302: 840: 583: 430: 107:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 3913: 3881: 3651: 3095:

If: <appeared in many mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time: -->

2155: 1880: 992: 678: 548:

Actually, Jmh123 has a point, even though I doubt this will be a very high-traffic page.

17: 4155: 4029: 2846:

I do not support this as a policy, although I agree with most of it. Weird? Read on...

2832: 2368: 1506: 1444: 1411: 1148: 1113: 705: 516: 462: 394: 3598: 870: 345: 4174: 3859: 3743: 3675: 3628: 3501: 3382: 3278: 2952: 2585: 2526: 2443: 2304: 2259: 2185: 2119: 2074: 2051: 2021: 1948: 1676:

So, when forced to choose, whom do we spare from harm and to whom do we cause it? --

822: 781: 2681:

Us not including somebody's name would not stop that name being widely publicised.

4165: 4138: 4101: 4067: 4040: 3965: 3937: 3919: 3871: 3851: 3833: 3804: 3761: 3747: 3729: 3703: 3683: 3632: 3589: 3505: 3478: 3448: 3386: 3361: 3333: 3311: 3282: 3259: 3251: 3228: 3220: 3205: 3157: 3149: 3143: 3080: 3066: 3048: 3030: 3016: 3006: 2993: 2980: 2966: 2956: 2939: 2928: 2891: 2835: 2825: 2803: 2800: 2794: 2783: 2758: 2745: 2723: 2688: 2676: 2662: 2646: 2624: 2621: 2609: 2598: 2589: 2570: 2567: 2550: 2530: 2510: 2494: 2473: 2446: 2421: 2404: 2385: 2371: 2356: 2341: 2322: 2308: 2285: 2274: 2264: 2243: 2229: 2226: 2203: 2188: 2173: 2170: 2162: 2134: 2124: 2097: 2079: 2056: 2040: 2026: 2000: 1990: 1979: 1976: 1951: 1919: 1890: 1862: 1823: 1809: 1796: 1785: 1759: 1730: 1713: 1693: 1682: 1655: 1626: 1611: 1600: 1551: 1492: 1455: 1437: 1427: 1398: 1387: 1371: 1368: 1362: 1352: 1331: 1315: 1305: 1268: 1257: 1243: 1232: 1215: 1172: 1151: 1134: 1116: 1104: 1089: 1065: 1024: 1002: 991:. I agree that sources need to be from reliable mainstream media sources that meet 983: 967: 942: 913: 899: 885: 849: 825: 816: 803: 784: 767: 752: 731: 718: 695: 651: 633: 629:

I agree, and I've moved your section further up the page and expanded it somewhat.

624: 612: 596: 557: 519: 490: 465: 439: 411: 397: 387: 360: 314: 286: 273: 250: 195: 3715:

records of books authored by the subject. The subject cites privacy concerns and

424:

Both the name of the test and the rationale in the essay, not to mention the new

292: 4120:

Either way, it should be clarified. Example of where this is causing confusion:

4093: 3132: 2865:

Could better examples be found? Probably. But to me that is not the real issue.

2822: 2418: 2382: 2353: 2219: 2215: 1727: 1690: 1169: 1131: 1021: 980: 939: 799: 739: 487: 456:

That's absurd. This isn't an article, it's just an example. The entire emphasis

436: 384: 3987: 3352:

Does not the subject's safety concern trump the issue of missing information?

515:

And it still would be absurd, and everything I just said would still apply. --

3077: 3045: 3040: 3013: 2990: 2963: 2888: 1815: 1777: 1249: 1228:

and others. I will try and re-word this statement to make my meaning clearer.

1096: 579: 155: 91: 63: 4148:

will be restored.) Instead of just intention, the thing to discuss is merits.

3244:

Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy

3074:

Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy

802:

is notable, so we include information about Chappaquiddick in his biography.

3168: 2315: 1225: 882: 3795:

tag on this is much more of a hornet's nest than I think you're aware of.--

2849:

This uses as "good" examples a couple of, in my opinion, rather poor ones.

1189:

Jmh123 correctly states that there is a distinction between an event being

1517:

the other tests, such as notability, NPOV, and RS, but would nevertheless

3738: 3623: 3496: 3377: 3273: 3128: 2947: 2580: 2521: 2299: 3039:

5) Information, from the news, that, e.g. there was a fire damaging the

1641:

deletion. Why not before? It's the way we've handled this in the past.

1509:, the information about his indictment would pass the inclusion test in 1447:, the information about his indictment would pass the inclusion test in 3674:, or related policies and these violations of NPOV are exempt from 3RR! 2314:

That's one of the things that was under debate - for example, with the

1562:

The mythical "uninvolved" admin, two admin rule, and general discussion

3900:

when they happen.). If something really desperately needs to be done

1915:? We're not about to make a habit of restorng harmful material. -- 1405:

The whole idea of "harm" should be removed from the proposed policy

1080:

be included in the article, I don't think it should be included as

2254:

I'm concerned about the phrase "appeared in reliable publications

4092:

as a "rule of thumb" that is considered a general principle. --

3983:

An older example of a documented situation is referenced below```

2224:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Al_Gore_III_and_Noelle_Bush

1637:

I don't think it would be wise to have the discussion take place

4010:

an editorial role in censorship requires a degree of disclosure.

3646:

this policy is unnecessary. If there is truly no conflict with

1814:

That works. WP:AN is always better than a ruling on two admins.

790:

in the event article, but we shouldn't present an article under

2671:

in which Geogre Bush never used coke and hitler was an artist.

103:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of 2653:

There's absolutely nothing in this proposed guideline, or the

2114:

But as I remember the ArbCom decision, it was only the actual

383:

rename the test and still use her situation as an example? -

26: 3556:

with you back in 1973", the investigation may be compromised.

2362:

I agree. One thing people seem to gloss over is if something

1057:, it was about a murder she was involved in - a real case of 2318:

crisis. The proposal was intended to serve as a compromise.

663:

What Seraphimblade had for dinner the night of June 29, 2007

154: 187:

This proposed guideline is intended to be complementary to

4001:

Wales turned to "trusted" Knowledge (XXG) administrators

677:

is how widely, for how long a period of time, and by how

3994:

Knowledge (XXG) also participated in the media blackout.

3250:). You can get more information at the BLP noticeboard. 1883:, the current wording was introduced yesterday by Jossi 1879:

and this guideline. As to the point about discussion at

2280: 1884: 1802: 1588:

I think discussion with other admins should also occur

1367:

This guideline is much needed. I give my full support.

1325: 1294: 1263: 1238: 996: 989: 976: 309: 279: 209: 223:

These three points are listed and a conclusion drawn:

3664:

So in a conflict with NPOV, NPOV must be compromised?

2962:

this is good news but not an encyclopedia article. -

3951:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria

3271:solve privacy problems by providing only the year. 1886:, but we need to try and find a compromise on this. 1289:

I've renamed the short cut to the "test" section as

4181:

Mid-impact WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages

4052:

Talk:Julio_A._Cabral-Corrada#Campaign_finance_issue

2987:

permenent and public file, with very little control

2578:perhaps we should have stuck with NPOV, V, and RS. 246:I believe this guideline needs to be tightened up. 3988:https://en.wikipedia.org/Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde 2765:This proposal seems like a form of self-censorship 2501:expanded the article yet). What is crucial is the 2149:Search for compromise over discussion of deletions 3971:Oversight Team Suppression based on Avoiding Harm 3343:It just causes a very slight lack of information. 3099:If: <appeared in a few unreliable sources: --> 3246:, "Privacy of personal information" subsection ( 2620:is one of the basic elements of medical ethics. 2237:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/James Dale 1433:The idea of "harm" comes from the BLP policy. -- 988:I've inserted compromise wording on that point: 3956:Maybe this should be made a guideline as well? 3752:See update to this, three talk sections above. 2821:ever go with simple personal whims like this.-- 393:I think you're kind of missing the point... -- 43:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s 4125:Talk:Vallow–Daybell doomsday murders#Infoboxes 3109:will be heavily used in a lot of discussions. 3044:someone else (fans, followers,...) do that. - 2199:only applies to the article namespace, AFAIK. 1248:It's a good start. However you still describe 2452:Pseudo-biographies are sometimes encyclopedic 189:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons 8: 2235:Another relevant AfD that I've just opened: 1869:(aargh, kill this non-BLP-compliant crap!!!) 1505:Walton monarchist89 writes, "In the case of 1095:Nor would it be at all accurate to describe 172:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links. 2637:I think the point is: Having some content 2614:You're completely misunderstanding Steve. 2347:Problem with "Remove first, discuss later" 58: 1772:Guideline should not be written as policy 1477:such reports are often misleading. "With 1045:, I think I've found a perfect example - 4191:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages 4026:visit the village pump's discussion here 3880:to delete the page in question. As in, 3878:unless it's really obviously a Good Idea 3163:Question about a subject's year of birth 1324:Later note: "WP:JENNA" has been deleted. 1085:person, giving each fact due weight. -- 127:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages 1911:Why do you see deletion as necessarily 1841:is completely unacceptable. We should 1041:On the topic of pseudo-biographies and 938:rationale for this still needs work. - 673:, the way we determine if something is 60: 3978:even those references will be removed. 3534:a clear legal or policy reason not to. 1311:OK, your compromise seems reasonable. 657:True...but not. Our job is to present 4088:(Passed 9 to 2) has a section titled 3131:there, and strengthens the argument. 3123:two criteria for that in this essay. 1488:comes great responsibility". Cheers, 7: 839:(inappropriate shortcut name fixed. 659:historically significant and notable 429:(inappropriate shortcut name fixed. 219:Question about "the Jenna Bush test" 32: 30: 3167:I have a question. Writer/producer 2975:What harm is caused and how Nabla? 1521:the inclusion test of the proposed 1193:to a person's notability and being 49:It is of interest to the following 742:, and demand that we get it right 121:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Essays 111:. For a listing of essays see the 100:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays 25: 4056:AfD, which closed as no consensus 3876:I don't think you get to use IAR 3818:. This directly contradicts the 2561:"Do no harm" is a two-edged sword 1053:. The article's not really about 261:, not facts. An example might be 97:This page is within the scope of 2239:. A coatrack if ever I saw one. 1970:Presumption in favour of privacy 378:Name of test a violation of BLP? 90: 76: 62: 31: 4186:NA-Class Knowledge (XXG) essays 3148:scholarly sources are missing. 1472:I suggest the aim is to "do no 4086:A 2007 request for arbitration 4068:15:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 3524:due to whim, vanity, or other. 2898:John Smeaton (baggage handler) 324:SOURCES of the HIGHEST QUALITY 1: 4041:11:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 3810:Deletion policy and this page 3762:15:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC) 3611:15:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC) 3162: 3144:23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC) 2655:biographies of living persons 2438:For instance, in the article 3938:02:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC) 3906:the office will do it for us 3872:20:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 3852:19:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 3805:22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 1480: 1478: 1049:, an article with a current 746:or not try to do it at all. 706:I would have thought so too. 141:This page has been rated as 3325: 3197: 3081:22:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC) 3067:16:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC) 3049:17:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3031:02:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3017:01:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3007:17:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 2994:17:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 2981:13:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 2967:13:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 2957:09:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 2940:15:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 2929:13:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 2892:15:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 2836:06:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 2826:01:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 2804:10:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2795:16:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 2784:12:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 1572:by virtue of that agreement 124:Template:WikiProject Essays 4207: 4166:22:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC) 4108:Clarification about PSEUDO 4102:08:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC) 3704:05:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC) 3684:01:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC) 3633:19:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 3616:"essential to the article" 3590:21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 3506:19:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 3479:19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 3449:18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 3387:17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 3362:16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 3334:15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 3312:15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 3283:15:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 3260:15:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 3229:14:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 3206:14:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 3182:06:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 263:Steven Gerald James Wright 199: 4139:23:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC) 3966:06:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 3748:04:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 3730:16:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 3158:07:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 2759:17:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2746:01:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 2724:13:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2689:08:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2677:06:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2663:03:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2647:15:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 2625:00:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2610:17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2599:16:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2590:03:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 2571:19:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 2551:06:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2531:04:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 2511:00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 2495:00:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 2447:14:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 2422:03:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 2405:15:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 2386:10:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 2372:05:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 2357:14:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 2342:02:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 2323:12:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 2309:01:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 2292:attempt at getting closer 2286:17:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2275:17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2265:15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2244:14:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2230:17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2204:07:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2189:16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2174:19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 2163:12:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2135:18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2125:17:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2098:17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2080:15:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2057:15:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2041:12:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2027:03:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2001:12:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1991:09:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1952:12:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 1920:15:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 1891:12:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1863:09:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1760:13:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 1656:10:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1552:15:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 1493:13:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 1332:12:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 886:18:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 843:01:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)) 817:23:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 785:18:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 768:14:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 753:14:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 732:14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 696:13:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 652:12:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 634:11:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 625:08:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 613:08:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 597:03:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 433:01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)) 398:06:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 388:22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 373:19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 361:19:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 339:18:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 315:18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 303:18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 162: 140: 85: 57: 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:HARM 3992:Role of Knowledge (XXG) 3916:are also available). -- 2430:Images of living persons 2007:circumvention of process 1980:23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1824:18:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1810:17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1797:17:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1786:16:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1731:16:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1714:16:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1694:16:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1683:15:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1627:18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1612:15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1601:15:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1456:13:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1438:12:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1428:12:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1410:harmed in some way. If 1399:13:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1388:12:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1372:17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1363:11:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1353:11:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1316:10:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1306:02:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1269:12:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1258:16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 1244:14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 1233:14:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 1216:13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 1173:17:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 1152:05:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 1135:19:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 1117:19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 1105:16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 1090:16:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 1066:14:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 1025:14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 1003:09:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 984:04:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 968:17:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 943:16:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 914:13:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 900:11:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 850:13:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 826:11:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 719:19:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 671:crystal ball predictions 667:original interpretations 558:11:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 520:05:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 491:19:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 466:19:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 440:15:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 412:15:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 352:. Certainly, notability 287:18:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 274:18:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 251:15:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 196:11:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 4146:Special:Diff/1237980313 2440:Primal Scream (Harvard) 2256:over a period of months 1664:Do no harm ... to whom? 845:) was to clarify this. 681:of sources it has been 3822:which says to use the 3816:solely of other admins 3072:Have you already read 2214:I have nominated both 1747:I've suggested "do no 931: 348:and (for biographies) 166:automatically assessed 159: 147:project's impact scale 105:Knowledge (XXG) essays 3710:Privacy of birth year 3100:then: <not ok: --> 1047:Lisa Michelle Lambert 927: 164:The above rating was 158: 3642:As I noted over at 1945:consensus to include 1939:material being that 1935:03:51, 12 July 2007 4112:Is the guidance in 4008:and cautioned that 3214:If the birthday is 3116:Neurology (journal) 593:Review my progress! 3785:Simply slapping a 3665: 3638:unnecessary policy 2831:I fully agree. -- 2339:Deranged bulbasaur 1340:Proposed guideline 1037:Pseudo-biographies 160: 45:content assessment 4019:Current Situation 3663: 3331: 3203: 3096:then: <ok: --> 3028: 3004: 2978: 2937: 2792: 2674: 2617:Primum non nocere 2549: 2493: 2492: 2462:George Washington 2329:instruction creep 2210:A Relevant Debate 1934: 1822: 1784: 1550: 1426: 844: 815: 765: 751: 729: 694: 687:hasn't been noted 649: 623: 611: 595: 434: 370: 336: 333:be in wikipedia. 300: 267:coatrack articles 185: 184: 181: 180: 177: 176: 173: 16:(Redirected from 4198: 4158: 3932: 3927: 3922: 3846: 3841: 3836: 3824:deletion process 3794: 3788: 3329: 3323: 3216:easily available 3201: 3195: 3027: 3003: 2977: 2936: 2856:Madeleine McCann 2791: 2741:A suggestion... 2673: 2548: 2478: 2477: 2262: 2122: 2077: 2054: 2024: 1933: 1818: 1780: 1543: 1487: 1485:high Google rank 1482: 1419: 1285:Shortcut renamed 1237:OK, how's this? 838: 814: 764: 750: 728: 693: 648: 622: 610: 591: 577: 428: 369: 335: 299: 212: 163: 129: 128: 125: 122: 119: 94: 87: 86: 81: 80: 79: 74: 66: 59: 36: 35: 34: 27: 21: 4206: 4205: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4171: 4170: 4156: 4110: 4075: 4048: 3973: 3948: 3930: 3925: 3920: 3844: 3839: 3834: 3820:deletion policy 3812: 3792: 3786: 3772: 3712: 3640: 3618: 3330: 3202: 3165: 3089: 3059: 2927: 2924:r e s e a r c h 2901: 2851:Damilola Taylor 2844: 2814: 2782: 2779:r e s e a r c h 2767: 2736: 2563: 2454: 2432: 2417:even says so.-- 2349: 2331: 2294: 2260: 2252: 2212: 2182: 2151: 2120: 2075: 2052: 2022: 2009: 1972: 1774: 1666: 1564: 1483: 1407: 1380: 1342: 1287: 1073: 1039: 866: 744:as of right now 644: 604: 578: 409:Eugeneccampbell 380: 295: 248:Eugeneccampbell 221: 216: 215: 208: 204: 126: 123: 120: 117: 116: 113:essay directory 75: 72: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 4204: 4202: 4194: 4193: 4188: 4183: 4173: 4172: 4169: 4168: 4150:I've notified 4149: 4129: 4128: 4109: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4083: 4074: 4071: 4047: 4044: 3972: 3969: 3947: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3890:office actions 3888:(OTOH, so are 3811: 3808: 3771: 3770:Not a proposal 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3711: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3691: 3690: 3639: 3636: 3617: 3614: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3509: 3508: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3337: 3336: 3324: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3286: 3285: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3209: 3208: 3196: 3190: 3189: 3164: 3161: 3088: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3058: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3034: 3033: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2921: 2900: 2895: 2843: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2813: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2776: 2766: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2735: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2679: 2650: 2649: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2562: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2514: 2513: 2453: 2450: 2431: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2408: 2407: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2375: 2374: 2348: 2345: 2330: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2293: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2277: 2251: 2250:inclusion test 2248: 2247: 2246: 2211: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2181: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2150: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2044: 2043: 2008: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1993: 1971: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1947:are required. 1943:sources and a 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1812: 1773: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1697: 1696: 1665: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1615: 1614: 1563: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1507:Thomas Ravenel 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1479: 1470: 1459: 1458: 1445:Thomas Ravenel 1440: 1412:Thomas Ravenel 1406: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1379: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1365: 1341: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1319: 1318: 1286: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1235: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1120: 1119: 1108: 1107: 1072: 1069: 1038: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 971: 970: 950: 919: 918: 917: 916: 903: 902: 865: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 756: 755: 724: 723: 722: 721: 643: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 603: 600: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 417: 416: 415: 414: 401: 400: 379: 376: 364: 363: 318: 317: 294: 291: 290: 289: 276: 220: 217: 214: 213: 205: 200: 183: 182: 179: 178: 175: 174: 161: 151: 150: 139: 133: 132: 130: 95: 83: 82: 67: 55: 54: 48: 37: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4203: 4192: 4189: 4187: 4184: 4182: 4179: 4178: 4176: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4153: 4147: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4137: 4134: 4126: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4118: 4115: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4084: 4081: 4077: 4076: 4072: 4070: 4069: 4065: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4046:Input request 4045: 4043: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4031: 4027: 4021: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4011: 4005: 4004: 4000: 3995: 3990: 3989: 3985: 3984: 3980: 3979: 3970: 3968: 3967: 3963: 3959: 3954: 3952: 3945: 3939: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3928: 3923: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3869: 3865: 3861: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3842: 3837: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3809: 3807: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3791: 3783: 3781: 3776: 3769: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3740: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3718: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3692: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3661: 3660:raison d'etre 3657: 3653: 3649: 3645: 3637: 3635: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3625: 3615: 3613: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3599: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3498: 3492: 3491: 3480: 3476: 3472: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3379: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3335: 3332: 3328: 3319: 3318: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3284: 3280: 3276: 3275: 3269: 3268: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3217: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3207: 3204: 3200: 3192: 3191: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3179: 3175: 3170: 3160: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3146: 3145: 3141: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3124: 3120: 3118: 3117: 3110: 3107: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3086: 3082: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3065: 3056: 3050: 3047: 3042: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3032: 3029: 3024: 3023: 3018: 3015: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3005: 2999: 2995: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2979: 2974: 2968: 2965: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2949: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2938: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2926: 2925: 2920: 2919: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2899: 2896: 2894: 2893: 2890: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2866: 2863: 2861: 2860:disappearance 2857: 2852: 2847: 2841: 2837: 2834: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2824: 2818: 2811: 2805: 2802: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2793: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2781: 2780: 2775: 2774: 2764: 2760: 2757: 2756: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2744: 2743:68.39.174.238 2739: 2733: 2725: 2722: 2717: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2690: 2687: 2684: 2680: 2678: 2675: 2670: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2661: 2656: 2652: 2651: 2648: 2645: 2644:B. Wolterding 2640: 2636: 2626: 2623: 2619: 2618: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2608: 2607: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2597: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2582: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2569: 2560: 2552: 2547: 2546:Seraphimblade 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2523: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2512: 2509: 2504: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2475: 2469: 2466: 2463: 2459: 2451: 2449: 2448: 2445: 2441: 2436: 2429: 2423: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2406: 2403: 2398: 2393: 2392: 2387: 2384: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2373: 2370: 2365: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2355: 2346: 2344: 2343: 2340: 2336: 2328: 2324: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2301: 2291: 2287: 2284: 2281: 2278: 2276: 2273: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2263: 2257: 2249: 2245: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2228: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2209: 2205: 2202: 2198: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2187: 2179: 2175: 2172: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2161: 2157: 2148: 2136: 2133: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2123: 2117: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2099: 2096: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2081: 2078: 2071: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2058: 2055: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2042: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2025: 2019: 2015: 2006: 2002: 1999: 1994: 1992: 1989: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1978: 1969: 1953: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1937: 1936: 1932: 1931:Seraphimblade 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1892: 1889: 1885: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1873:provisionally 1870: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1861: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1844: 1840: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1811: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1795: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1771: 1761: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1732: 1729: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1715: 1712: 1711: 1705: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1695: 1692: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1681: 1680: 1674: 1670: 1663: 1657: 1654: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1628: 1625: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1613: 1610: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1599: 1593: 1591: 1586: 1584: 1580: 1575: 1573: 1569: 1561: 1553: 1549: 1546: 1542: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1494: 1491: 1486: 1475: 1471: 1468: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1457: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1441: 1439: 1436: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1425: 1422: 1418: 1413: 1404: 1400: 1397: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1386: 1377: 1373: 1370: 1366: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1351: 1347: 1339: 1333: 1330: 1326: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1317: 1314: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1284: 1270: 1267: 1264: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1256: 1251: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1242: 1239: 1236: 1234: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1214: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1153: 1150: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1136: 1133: 1129: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1118: 1115: 1110: 1109: 1106: 1103: 1098: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1088: 1083: 1079: 1070: 1068: 1067: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1036: 1026: 1023: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1004: 1001: 997: 994: 990: 987: 986: 985: 982: 977: 975: 974: 973: 972: 969: 966: 961: 956: 951: 947: 946: 945: 944: 941: 936: 930: 926: 923: 915: 912: 907: 906: 905: 904: 901: 898: 894: 890: 889: 888: 887: 884: 879: 874: 872: 864:Some thoughts 863: 851: 848: 842: 837: 833: 829: 828: 827: 824: 820: 819: 818: 813: 812:Seraphimblade 809: 805: 801: 797: 793: 788: 787: 786: 783: 779: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 766: 761: 754: 749: 748:Seraphimblade 745: 741: 736: 735: 734: 733: 730: 720: 717: 714: 711: 707: 703: 699: 698: 697: 692: 691:Seraphimblade 688: 684: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 660: 656: 655: 654: 653: 650: 641: 635: 632: 628: 627: 626: 621: 620:Seraphimblade 617: 616: 615: 614: 609: 608:Seraphimblade 602:Good proposal 601: 599: 598: 594: 589: 585: 581: 559: 555: 551: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 521: 518: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 492: 489: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 467: 464: 459: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 441: 438: 432: 427: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 413: 410: 405: 404: 403: 402: 399: 396: 392: 391: 390: 389: 386: 377: 375: 374: 371: 367:information. 362: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 342: 341: 340: 337: 332: 331: 326: 325: 316: 313: 310: 307: 306: 305: 304: 301: 288: 285: 281: 277: 275: 272: 268: 264: 260: 255: 254: 253: 252: 249: 244: 240: 236: 233: 230: 227: 224: 218: 211: 207: 206: 203: 198: 197: 194: 190: 171: 167: 157: 153: 152: 148: 144: 138: 135: 134: 131: 114: 110: 106: 102: 101: 96: 93: 89: 88: 84: 71: 68: 65: 61: 56: 52: 46: 42: 38: 29: 28: 19: 4152:WT:ESSAY C/C 4130: 4119: 4111: 4089: 4060:Innisfree987 4049: 4033:MeropeRiddle 4025: 4022: 4018: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3993: 3991: 3986: 3982: 3981: 3977: 3974: 3958:Ken Arromdee 3955: 3949: 3918: 3917: 3901: 3893: 3885: 3832: 3831: 3813: 3797:Father Goose 3784: 3777: 3773: 3737: 3713: 3659: 3641: 3622: 3619: 3596: 3495: 3376: 3326: 3272: 3247: 3215: 3198: 3166: 3147: 3125: 3121: 3114: 3111: 3105: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3087:Widely known 3060: 2986: 2946: 2922: 2916: 2902: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2867: 2864: 2848: 2845: 2819: 2815: 2777: 2771: 2768: 2755:Black Falcon 2753: 2740: 2737: 2721:Tony Sidaway 2715: 2669:WP:Whitewash 2660:Tony Sidaway 2638: 2615: 2606:Black Falcon 2604: 2596:Steve Dufour 2579: 2564: 2520: 2502: 2470: 2467: 2457: 2455: 2437: 2433: 2396: 2381:community.-- 2363: 2350: 2332: 2298: 2295: 2255: 2253: 2213: 2183: 2152: 2115: 2069: 2033: 2017: 2013: 2010: 1988:Tony Sidaway 1973: 1944: 1940: 1917:Tony Sidaway 1912: 1875:removed per 1872: 1868: 1860:Tony Sidaway 1842: 1838: 1775: 1748: 1710:Black Falcon 1708: 1703: 1679:Black Falcon 1677: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1653:Tony Sidaway 1638: 1598:Tony Sidaway 1594: 1589: 1587: 1582: 1578: 1576: 1571: 1567: 1565: 1518: 1514: 1484: 1473: 1408: 1381: 1343: 1299:WP:HARM#TEST 1291:WP:HARM#TEST 1288: 1255:Tony Sidaway 1221: 1213:Tony Sidaway 1194: 1190: 1126: 1102:Tony Sidaway 1087:Tony Sidaway 1081: 1077: 1074: 1054: 1040: 959: 954: 932: 928: 924: 920: 897:Tony Sidaway 892: 877: 875: 867: 836:WP:HARM#TEST 807: 804:Bill Clinton 795: 791: 757: 743: 725: 701: 686: 682: 674: 658: 645: 605: 574: 550:MessedRocker 461:nothing. -- 457: 426:WP:HARM#TEST 381: 365: 353: 329: 328: 323: 322: 319: 296: 258: 245: 241: 237: 234: 231: 228: 225: 222: 186: 142: 98: 51:WikiProjects 41:project page 40: 3936:@160, i.e. 3850:@859, i.e. 3174:Nightscream 3133:User:Krator 3064:VisitorTalk 2913:WP:COATRACK 2683:violet/riga 2220:Noelle Bush 2216:Al Gore III 1913:provisional 1481:great power 1378:My comments 1059:WP:COATRACK 800:Ted Kennedy 740:immediatism 642:As expected 259:allegations 4175:Categories 4090:Do no harm 4073:Do no harm 3946:Links here 3754:Robert K S 3722:Robert K S 3696:Wanderer57 3656:WP:NOTABLE 3603:Robert K S 3582:Wanderer57 3471:Wanderer57 3441:Wanderer57 3354:Wanderer57 3304:Wanderer57 3172:thoughts? 3041:Cutty Sark 2734:Might add: 2508:Carcharoth 2456:Regarding 2402:Carcharoth 2197:WP:POVFORK 1801:How about 1755:. Cheers, 1749:additional 1624:Carcharoth 1541:JamesMLane 1474:additional 1417:JamesMLane 1360:Carcharoth 1303:Carcharoth 1250:Jenna Bush 1097:Jenna Bush 1071:Jenna Bush 841:Carcharoth 792:their name 431:Carcharoth 143:Mid-impact 109:discussion 73:Mid‑impact 4157:Aaron Liu 4114:WP:PSEUDO 3902:right now 3898:grumbling 3828:WP:ESSAYS 3169:Jeph Loeb 2909:WP:PSEUDO 2833:Ned Scott 2369:Ned Scott 2316:Bus uncle 1941:excellent 1843:encourage 1816:≈ jossi ≈ 1778:≈ jossi ≈ 1226:Leo Blair 1195:essential 1149:Ned Scott 1114:Ned Scott 1082:essential 935:coat-rack 517:Ned Scott 463:Ned Scott 395:Ned Scott 280:rewritten 3860:Brammers 3790:proposed 3676:Bdell555 3327:(1 == 2) 3199:(1 == 2) 3188:the age. 3129:trifecta 3106:reliable 2905:WP:BLP1E 2485:contribs 2444:Jgassens 2335:WP:SENSE 2261:VanTucky 2186:Marskell 2180:POV fork 2121:VanTucky 2116:deletion 2076:VanTucky 2053:VanTucky 2023:VanTucky 2014:blanking 1467:WP:UNDUE 1327:Cheers, 1191:relevant 823:FloNight 782:FloNight 679:reliable 588:Contribs 202:Shortcut 4080:WP:NPOV 3886:un-wiki 3717:WP:HARM 3668:WP:HARM 3648:WP:NPOV 3252:Noroton 3221:Noroton 3150:Andries 2842:Comment 2801:Cynical 2789:Bingo! 2622:Circeus 2568:GRBerry 2474:davidwr 2415:WP:BOLD 2227:Kaldari 2171:GRBerry 1977:Ender85 1839:avoided 1583:anybody 1523:WP:HARM 1511:WP:HARM 1449:WP:HARM 1369:Kaldari 1346:WP:CENT 1262:Fixed. 1043:WP:HARM 893:grossly 778:WP:NPOV 760:WP:NPOV 713:megalon 675:notable 210:WT:HARM 145:on the 4131:thx — 4094:Otr500 3910:WP:G10 3780:WT:BLP 3672:WP:BLP 3654:, and 2823:Pharos 2812:Limits 2503:reason 2489:e-mail 2419:Kylohk 2383:Kylohk 2354:Kylohk 2320:Walton 2283:Walton 2279:Done. 2272:Walton 2241:Walton 2201:Walton 2160:Walton 2132:Walton 2095:Walton 2038:Walton 2018:by all 1998:Walton 1888:Walton 1877:WP:BLP 1820:(talk) 1807:Walton 1794:Walton 1782:(talk) 1751:harm" 1728:Jmh123 1691:Jmh123 1609:Walton 1590:before 1453:Walton 1435:Kaypoh 1396:Walton 1385:Kaypoh 1350:Walton 1313:Walton 1266:Walton 1241:Walton 1230:Walton 1170:Jmh123 1132:Jmh123 1078:should 1063:Walton 1022:Jmh123 1000:Walton 998:here. 981:Jmh123 965:Walton 940:Jmh123 911:Walton 847:Walton 832:WP:BIO 631:Walton 488:Jmh123 437:Jmh123 385:Jmh123 358:Walton 350:WP:BIO 330:Always 312:Walton 284:Walton 271:Walton 193:Walton 168:using 118:Essays 70:Essays 47:scale. 3931:Kevin 3914:WP:A7 3882:WP:G6 3845:Kevin 3652:WP:RS 3404:know. 3078:Nabla 3046:Nabla 3014:Nabla 2991:Nabla 2964:Nabla 2918:h i s 2889:Nabla 2876:one. 2773:h i s 2364:needs 2156:WP:AN 1881:WP:AN 1753:above 1639:after 1579:after 1568:prior 1222:would 1128:Bush. 993:WP:RS 960:doing 955:media 683:noted 580:Nicko 278:I've 39:This 4162:talk 4098:talk 4064:talk 4037:talk 3962:talk 3912:and 3864:talk 3801:talk 3758:talk 3744:talk 3726:talk 3700:talk 3680:talk 3629:talk 3607:talk 3586:talk 3502:talk 3475:talk 3445:talk 3383:talk 3358:talk 3308:talk 3279:talk 3256:talk 3225:talk 3178:talk 3154:talk 3076:? - 2953:talk 2911:and 2716:Pace 2586:talk 2527:talk 2481:talk 2397:will 2305:talk 2218:and 1803:this 1519:fail 1515:pass 1295:here 883:Rayc 871:WP:V 716:2000 710:Maxa 584:Talk 554:talk 346:WP:N 170:data 4133:В²C 3896:of 3894:lot 3739:DGG 3624:DGG 3497:DGG 3378:DGG 3292:it? 3274:DGG 2948:DGG 2686:(t) 2639:not 2581:DGG 2522:DGG 2487:)/( 2483:)/( 2300:DGG 2070:all 2034:are 1949:Avb 1926:BLP 1757:CWC 1621:--> 1490:CWC 1329:CWC 1055:her 1051:AfD 878:why 808:are 704:" 669:or 354:can 137:Mid 4177:: 4164:) 4100:) 4066:) 4039:) 4028:: 3964:) 3904:, 3870:) 3803:) 3793:}} 3787:{{ 3782:. 3760:) 3746:) 3728:) 3702:) 3682:) 3670:, 3650:, 3631:) 3609:) 3588:) 3504:) 3477:) 3447:) 3385:) 3360:) 3310:) 3281:) 3258:) 3227:) 3180:) 3156:) 3142:) 3104:un 2955:) 2907:, 2719:-- 2588:) 2529:) 2307:) 1986:-- 1805:? 1704:no 1651:-- 1100:-- 796:is 780:. 708:-- 556:) 458:is 4160:( 4136:☎ 4127:. 4096:( 4062:( 4035:( 3960:( 3926:Y 3921:N 3868:c 3866:/ 3862:( 3840:Y 3835:N 3799:( 3756:( 3742:( 3724:( 3698:( 3678:( 3627:( 3605:( 3584:( 3500:( 3473:( 3443:( 3381:( 3356:( 3306:( 3277:( 3254:( 3223:( 3176:( 3152:( 3140:c 3137:t 3135:( 2951:( 2584:( 2525:( 2491:) 2479:( 2476:/ 2303:( 1548:c 1545:t 1424:c 1421:t 1130:- 1020:- 700:" 590:) 586:• 582:( 552:( 149:. 115:. 53:: 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Avoiding harm - Knowledge (XXG)

Index