Talk:Another Angry Voice

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why no biographical details? edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Strangely, for a Wikipedia piece on a very popular blog, there are no biographical details about the blogger himself, Thomas G. Clark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs) 12:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps Thomas Clark does not want people to know about his personal life, and only wants people to know about his political views and the problems with the incumbent government? Please respect people's privacy. The biographies of living persons policy has more information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

According to this Wikipedia piece, sometimes Angry Angry Voice is more widely read that some of the tabloids. There's a large amount of biographical detail on the journalists and editors who work for the media on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Why should the case with Another Angry Voice be any different? You can't be selective when it comes to privacy.

I also see that even my one-sentence edit to this piece on Another Angry Voice had been deleted. Now there is nothing left. Incidentally, the AAV blogger includes a lot of "personal detail" in his own blog. - Reginald Sniff-Peters 13:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs)

Read WP:BLPSOURCES carefully - "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." Article subjects have complained about Wikipedia articles about themselves, and some have even tried to sue the Wikimedia Foundation for libel. That means you must always use an in-line citation to a source, so if we get a complaint, it can be backed up with where we got the information from. If a user does not add a claim without a source, any user may immediately remove it, and only adding it back with a citation.

If you need help explaining how to add an in-line citation, ask on my talk page and I'll help you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Richie33: By "personal details" I don't mean "private life". I mean political and professional positions, etc... Are you an official Wikipedia editor? Was that long quote written especially for my edits or is a statement of general policy? I don't understand how it applies to me. I haven't provided "contentious material" that's "unsourced". And the bit that was "unsourced" has been removed. -Reginald Sniff-Peters 13:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs)

It's general policy, and it has come about after years of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department fielding complaints again and again. You would be surprised at what people take exception to on articles about them. For a good example, see Talk:Nic Potter#First departure from Van der Graaf, where in attempting to correctly a source an article, I accidentally libelled a recently deceased person. This is not good. So you've got to be really, really careful. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Richie333: Wikipedia can't be libeled for stating that Thomas G. Clark is, say, a lecturer at Sheffield University who, say, works for the Labour Party. Not if those claims are fully "sourced". That's all I had in mind. As I said, many Wiki articles provide that kind of information all over the place. -Reginald Sniff-Peters 13:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs)

Add topic