Talk:Robert Black (advocate)

Untitled

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

Fair use rationale for Image:ProfBlack.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the blog worth mentioning?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1rr

You have an odd definition of 1rr:

[1] [2] [3]. 3 reverts in 26 hours is borderline 3rr, not borderline 1rr. How pleasant. MOASPN 05:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Another removal of link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No, it depends on the information being added. We have a link to his website, which verifies most facts about him. We need to treat with extreme caution any link which repeats the particular piece of information his blog publishes, because so many additions of links to that information have been driven by a concerted off-wiki harassment campaign. At this point, especially given the onvolvement of identified ban-evading socks of banned editors, I think we should leave it a couple of weeks and see what happens. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The link was added to the article by User:Phase4, who seems to be an editor in good standing. Thus far, I haven't seen any evidence his actions were meant to do anything but improve the encyclopedia. --Alecmconroy 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I'm certainly not one of those "ban-evading socks of banned editors"!Phase4 09:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Now might not the best time to have such a discussion, Phase4. Guy's basically lost his cool on this. He's blocked indef blocked Private Musings-- from where I sit, it looks like PM's only offense is offense is basically for arguing that blog link should be included, although claims of sock puppet abuse or editwarring are the on-book justifications for blocking someone you're having a content dispute with. See discussion: [4] --Alecmconroy 10:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that WP:EL indicates that the blog should be included as an external link. However, in the contested version of the page, it is being used as a reference, and is accompanied by text inside the body of the article. That does seem somewhat promotional, and using it that way calls into question whether it's a reliable source. I'd be in favor of linking to the blog, but only in the actual "External links" section. --Hyperbole 07:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate issues: first, should there be an NPA/BADSITES concern? As I have argued on multiple occasions before, we cannot allow external concerns of Wikipedia users make our articles take away content from our Wikipedia articles. That is both a POV (supporting Wikipedians) and creates other problems. The end goal is and must always be the encyclopedia. Furthermore, removing of such links in article space looks very bad to our readers and supporters; we all saw the backlash over Making Light which was completely appropriate. The next question is whether the link deserves to be included at all. I'm not convinced it should be a reliable source for this purpose(haven't made up my mind) but for someone of this sort we would generally include their blog in external links so it should be included there at minimum. JoshuaZ 14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thinking about this more, I don't see a compelling reason to mention in the article text "he has a blog!"- we should have it as an external link but not as anything else. JoshuaZ 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

After seeing this particular issue thrown around all of Wikipedia it seems, I finally wandered over here to take a look. I would agree with your sentiment Joshua. The problem blog entry is 1 out of 54 current posts and one of the smaller posts. Calling the blog a BADSITE is a bit of a stretch. Spryde 20:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth mention that WP:BADSITES is an explicitly rejected policy. All we have to go on, then, is an ArbCom ruling that states that a site that deliberately disseminates information about Wikipedians that they don't want made public should not be linked to (referring, specifically, to Encyclopedia Dramatica's attack page on MONGO. Black's blog links to a site that could be viewed as an attack site - Wikipedia Watch - and says that they allege that they have uncovered SlimVirgin's real identity. There is no policy, or ruling, that prevents linking to a site that links to a site that Wikipedia should not be linked to. Even more bizarrely, Wikipedia actually does directly link to Wikipedia Watch, e.g, at Public Information Research#Wikipedia Watch. --Hyperbole 21:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess my feeling is that if it was good before, and the subject matter/nature of the site has not changed then I can't see the fuss. Using the same logic as those opposed to the link, any site is subject to being removed based on them outing a particular editor. I am hoping this sort of argument has been gone over before. I guess I have to dig to see if it has. Spryde 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion: That he maintains a blog in his area of expertise is pretty obviously relevant to people seeking information about him. Removing it makes as much sense to me as removing mention of a book or article he has written because we don't like what he talks about. Personally, I would also retain mention of its creation in the article; we're trying to paint a picture of the subject, and I see his starting a blog with that subject at that particular time as an indicator of the subject's importance to him. -- William Pietri 05:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully Prof Black won't mind his 3rd November comment on his 26th October blog entry being repeated here -- luke 04:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"What a minefield I have unwittingly entered! However, it has been deeply instructive about the inner workings of Wikipedia. I, for one, will never regard it in the same light again.

"As regards ab's query about whether I can see that revealing her (alleged) identity could be hurtful to SlimVirgin, my answer is: of course I can see this, but in the larger scheme of things (an atrocity in which 270 people died and in respect of which a man has been wrongly convicted) avoiding hurt to a Wikipedia editor comes very low down my list of priorities."

Hi, Luke. Could you say more about how you expect that to help the discussion here? Thanks, William Pietri 04:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya - I'll try. It seems to me that this RfC is partially a result of the bad feeling engendered by the BADSITES debate, a serious case of wiki-navel-gazing if ever there was. And, oh soooo ironically, the one-purpose sockpuppet account owner whose edits started the whole debate off here had very likely been reading Wikipedia Review (one of the BADSITES in question, according to some) since her/his edits started very soon after the 26th October blog entry was first mentioned there. As I mentioned in my edit summary to the above quotation, I wanted to try and introduce a little perspective to what has become a ridiculously inward-looking debate among editors. ...... And then there is also the question of accountability and responsibility which seem sadly lacking judging by these events. As has been discussed elsewhere recently, the question of authority structure is important for the smooth function of this project and it's by no means certain that we have arrived at the right solution. HTH -- luke 06:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. The reason I ask is that although Prof. Black's statement seems perfectly reasonable to you, others might see it as provocative, as hurt to Wikipedia editors is pretty high on their list of priorities. I do agree this is case is an interesting example of a broader issue, but I'd like to keep this page focused on the article about Robert Black. That's not to discourage your interest in the big picture, though; one good place for those discussions is the wikien-l mailing list. Thanks, William Pietri 06:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this is a hard case, and as they say, hard cases make bad law. It might be better to decide first on the general principle of whether academics' blogs should be linked to. My impression is that an increasing number of academics are blogging, and their blogs may often be considered as part of their "official" site. Most unis allot web space to each academic and expect them to promote their research activities there - this may take the form of a blog, a non-blog, or something in between. It can be a useful place to put working papers, other outputs of work in progress, links to projects that the academic is taking part in. Therefore I would say that the general principle is that, unless they explicitly say that the blog is made in a personal capacity, academics' blogs are part of their notability. They may be a reliable source for the academic's viewpoint, especially if that is contentious or political in any way, but are not peer-reviewed and therefore not reliable for scientific fact. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Some transparency re : the blog issue

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

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

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

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

Another section title

Tom has removed the material discussed at length by many editors above, clearly against consensus, and without engaging here. I have promised not to edit the article at all at the moment, otherwise I would make my 1 revert. I simply can't see any justifications for his edit. Please engage here, and discuss. Please. Privatemusings 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, linking to his official site is appropriate, but linking to his blog is promotional. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you have asserted that previously - but it's more important to me now for you to consider responding to the many, many comments above, and the clear consensus, otherwise your behaviour really isn't good enough. Privatemusings 20:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the content of the article, the way we handle other people with blogs, and the general feelings on this page, I have added it back as an external link. This appears to be the way we handle it on 100+ other people who are notable and blog at the same time. Not using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but more as it is appropriate there based on the content of the blog (sans the one item) and the reasons for notability for this person. As a source, I feel it would be highly inappropriate but appropriate for the above reasons as an external link. Spryde 01:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI - my original intent in making the link a ref. was to obfuscate it a little, really to try and include it in the least possible controversial way. I accept that that idea didn't work. Privatemusings 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That might not have been the best course of action but that is in the past. Based on numerous other notable people and the articles about them, their blogs are prominently displayed in the EL section. Looking at WP:EL and the content of this blog (again, less the one post), this blog is in the same vein. People such as Mark Cuban, John Carmack, etc as their blogs directly relate to their line of work (billionare playboy team owner, programming god/Rocket Guy, etc) :) Spryde 11:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Blacks "official site", from an EL point of view, appears to be his blog. The other page is actually his university's page bio on him, it appears. --Alecmconroy 12:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:EL that requires linking to any site. It doesn't even mention blogs written by biography subjects. It permits some links and blogs written by bio subjects are allowed, but also note that some prohibitions may have the efect of prohibiting some links. (For example, sites that host copyright violations are prohibited). So WP:EL should not be used as a justification for adding the blog link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also not the case that everything that is not mandatory is forbidden; there's a wide range of things for which one must exercise editorial judgment and, should editors disagree, reach consensus, rather than have a position be dictated by policy. *Dan T.* 00:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Will, rereading your posts, you raise interesting abstract points, but I'm not sure as to your opinion of whether or not the link should be included in this case - have you had the chance to form one? Privatemusings 00:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Will, this comes across frankly as Wikilawyering. The link isn't forbidden by WP:EL and standard practice is to include this sort of link. And BADSITES has been rejected, so I don't see any special reason to throw out this link if we would include it normally but for the single entry. JoshuaZ 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The link is relevant, its inclusion makes the article more informative. --Alecmconroy 21:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that, contrary to several assertions on this page, there is no policy or guideline that I'm aware of that calls for linking to the blogs of biography subjects. It is permitted but it's not mandated or even suggested. Apparently the only real standard is the consensus of the editors participating in the article as to the relevance, worth, accuracy, etc., of the link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL comes pretty dang close to mandating it. Add in WP:NPOV and WP:ENC and I'd say you got yourself a mandate. --Alecmconroy 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What specific language in WP:EL mandates the inclusion of any link? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

EL comes pretty dang close to a mandate-- it says if you're gonna do a bio, ya probably oughta link to that's person's site. That's basically a mandate. If you're sufficiently motivated, and desperate enough not to link to something, you probably can dig up an argument to say it's not a mandate.

Wikilawyer the term "Official Site" for example-- what does "Official Site" really mean, and what qualifies something as an "Official site"? Can a biographical's subject's web log qualify as an "Official Site", or must some other traits be present to qualify it as an "official site"? Maybe since it's hosted at blogspot rather than robertblack.com, it's not an official site. Or maybe we can argue that a human being can possess one and only one "official site" and all others are "not official sites" and can be deleted?? yada yada yada.

If you look at WP:EL, you see a firm "ya probably oughta link to people's sites". Mandate is in the eye of the beholder, but EL is pretty close. If you don't see it there, but then the place to find a hard mandate that absolutely requires us to not delete his blog can be found in the statement: Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia written from a Neutral Point of View. --Alecmconroy 22:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see in your answer any quotaiton from WP:EL mandating, or even coming close to mandating, linking to a subject's blog. Did I miss it? If not, the folks who've said things like "I agree that WP:EL indicates that the blog should be included as an external link" and "I'd strongly suggest that WP:EL is clear on this - the blog should be linked" are incorrect. Regarding WP:NPOV, what specific language in that policy mandates linking to a biography subject's blog? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll play the straight man for ya. :). WP:EL "Articles about any [...] person [...] should link to the official site". Now my line is: "Why Will, surely that's basically is a mandate to link to Black's site.", to which you will reply with your line about how that's not a really a mandate at all and I'm horribly confused in thinking so.

(incidentally, my tone here is SUPPOSED to come off as friendly-jibe silliness expressing a collegial happiness. My tone is NOT supposed to be an angry sarcastic hateful critical type of joking at your expense-- I hope you don't see it that way. There's probably some emoticon which would explain all that, but I have no idea which on it is, so I figured I'd just type all that out. ) --Alecmconroy 23:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The core elements of the *guideline* (not policy) is that a few external links may be added, but they should mostly be limited. The second paragraph reads:

• Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified.

So every link must be justified. That's what's going on in this talk page. If the justifications are adequate for a consensus of editors then the link should be added. Some suggested links are included under "What should be linked". But those are not mandated links: no links are mandated. There are also "restrictions on linking", which lists two prohibitions based on polices, neither of which seem to apply here. Then it asks:

• Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?

If the material is not tasteful and factual then we shouldn't link to it. I can see how those questions may apply to many "official" websites, perhaps even this one. The guideline goes one to say again that every link needs to be evaluated:

• Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors.

So that's the point of this discussion. When a guideline says, "if in doubt, discuss" then the argument that the guideline mandates a certain behavior is obviously incorrect. The only thing it mandates is a discussion leading to a consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, but clearly Wikilawyering. At the end of the day, if he's notable enough to have an article, we tell people about his blog if he has one. We do this everywhere else, we do it here too-- even if his blog does say something bad about SV. Just my opinion, but it's the opinion that's held sway at WP:BADSITES, WP:NPA, WP:LINKLOVE, and the Attack site arbcom case. Can have it here too if you want, but I think this has been pretty well decided. --Alecmconroy 01:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikilayering? Have I misinterpreted the guideline? It makes the same point twice:

• No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified.'
• Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines... When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors.

The guideline clearly says that the inclusion of each link must be justified, should be considered on its merits, and in case of doubt, agreed upon after discussion. I'm not arguing over whether the blog is notable enough to include or not- I'm saying the WP:EL does not mandate its inclusion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Accepting, for the moment, your view, it would seem to me that we have also discussed its merits. 40k seems like plenty to me, anyhow. I'd hope you see it that way, too. If not, if there is some merit insufficiently examined, perhaps you could raise it in a new section so we could finish the discussion and move on? William Pietri 03:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If the discussion here has resulted in a consensus to include the article then it should be included. I haven't read the full discussion so I couldn't say what the consensus is. My point is just that nothing in WP:EL requires us to include it. What matters is the talk page discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear; I understood that was your point. If you are interested in discussing hypothetical issues around WP:EL, could you guys be persuaded to discuss it on the related talk page? Thanks, William Pietri 04:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not a hypothetical issue about WP:EL, it's how it applies to this and any article. WP:EL calls for us to discuss here any links that are in doubt. That's what we're doing. There's no reason to move this discussion elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Our article should be a biography of Black, not a platform for his views on what really happened to flight 103. Devoting so much of this page to Lockerbie may be undue weight. His University site is relevant to his biography. Linking to his blog puts more emphasis on his already overemphasized Lockerbie theories, and is more promotional than informative. If his blog has some established notability in reliable sources, maybe it could be linked from Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Search for his name in google or in google news. Lockerbie-related material appears to be what he's notable for.. If that's not notable enough, AFD the whole thing, but if you're gonna cover him, you have to cover him neutrallly-- not cutting out the parts of him you personally object to. -Alecmconroy 01:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Looking at his bio, they mention he has been following Lockerbie closely for the last 14 years. All his recent journal articles are about it, and it's the only topic he blogs about. I do think it would be good if we could cover more of his early life, but I'm not seeing the amount we have on Lockerbie as disproportionate to the amount of his life he's been engaged in it. William Pietri 01:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To quote William above, "My personal opinion: That he maintains a blog in his area of expertise is pretty obviously relevant to people seeking information about him.". We have now discussed on this page objections (from the same editors) based on WP:SPS, WP:BLP, WP:EL, WP:RS, and now WP:DUE. To raise any of these concerns in isolation would be valid and useful - to move through 5 policies, announcing each time that this is the one that prohibits the link is the behaviour of editors with a clear, unhelpful agenda. Please stop it. Privatemusings 01:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Are Black's theories on Lockerbie important to his notability? --SugarBeets 06:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sugar - its probably best for you to take a quick look at the article, and form an opinion - you'll also see above much discussion about how Prof. Black's notability is built solely on his relationship to lockerbie. Short answer - yes. Privatemusings 06:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Writing as someone who has zapped the speculation from other places; we should keep the link to the blog. It is his personal site, and he writes about part of what makes him notable. Don't obsess over one post on it, that's a fairly small part of the blog content. It's a Lockerbie blog, not a personal attack blog. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Professor Black's blog: Heat versus Light

Today, on Prof. Black's blog, an anonymous contributor offered the following inspired comment: ...

comment unrelated to content of our article removed; please don't restore--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

...Phase4 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Phase4. Although I agree this is an interesting topic, I would rather keep this page focused on the article about Professor Robert Black, rather than Black's views or things tangentially related. If you need help finding a place to discuss this, let me know and we'll figure something out. Thanks, William Pietri 23:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. I was just about to strike the whole section, but WP's comment seems to cover it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Robert Black (lawyer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060113080254/http://www.law.ed.ac.uk:80/staff/robertblack.asp to http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/staff/robertblack.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080829212847/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1847961,00.html to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1847961,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert Black (lawyer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090129073546/http://www.theherald.co.uk:80/news/news/display.var.2481827.0.Secret_talks_on_deal_to_return_Megrahi_to_Libya.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2481827.0.Secret_talks_on_deal_to_return_Megrahi_to_Libya.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Black (lawyer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211003911/http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2486999.0.expert_devises_changes_in_law_to_speed_lockerbie_appeal_verdict.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2486999.0.Expert_devises_changes_in_law_to_speed_Lockerbie_appeal_verdict.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)