We have a few articles on notable chimpanzees and gorillas. It has been argued that such animals should be regarded as persons, so one can make the case that our BLP policy should also apply to them. Count Iblis (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's position (link) is that apes are not humans and not afforded the same legal rights and protections. If an ape does not have copyright law protection, it certainly cannot have libel law protection. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 22:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here's the deal - if you can persuade 0.1% of the living non-human great apes to sign a petition asking to be recognised as persons under Wikipedia policy, I'll make a formal proposal that it be accepted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantimje it is hard to see how genuine distresss would be caused to a great ape by having unverified and perhaps false information about them in their biography but if you can think of an example that would at least be helpful in starting any process off. ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs23:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is also about protecting the public profile of a person. Suppose that in the future a chimp like Congo who can paint will have a Wiki page. Then negative information like "that ape doesn't actually make the paitings himself", could be damaging to the interests of the chimp as it could negatively affect the price of the paintings. So, such statements should not be allowed unless it is supported by clear evidence. Count Iblis (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The chimp does not have interests in the eyes of Wikipedia, its owners do. But of course any dubious unsourced statement could be challenged. No need for BLP. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 02:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your AGF and comments are excellent, but some threads should be allowed to wither away because they are not worth feeding, if you get my drift. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is not, though, based on US law, othwerwise we might give corporations BLP status too, as was requested here the other week. I did think about this yesterday and concluded that not only would the chimp not understand the concept of money but it is hard to see how his or her lifestyle could be affected by the price of his or her paintings as the chimp will not be able to have a bank account that he fundamentally controls, not now or in the future. Whoever would be making the money, it would not be the chimp. Making exceptions to BLP policy by including corportions or animals would tend to weaken the policy and so I would oppose on this grounds. ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs00:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME should it discuss the legitimacy of the court in question?
(I added this to the talk page last month. A spambot removed it without anyone ever answering the question and deciding whether or not an edit was appropriate. I'm not sure of the protocol here, so I'm asking my question again.)
The "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" standard is given in the {WP:BLPCRIME} article. I am curious if this paragraph should include some discussion about the legitimacy of the court of law. Current policy would say that unless the person confessed to the crime, instead of ever saying "John Doe murdered Jane Doe", it should always be "John Doe was convicted of murdering Jane Doe." I am suggesting that it might need to go further and say "John Doe was convicted of murdering Jane Doe by The Court Of Whatever." A whole lot of small town judges operate with very little oversight. Even national courts may be untrustworthy sources when politics gets involved, as seems likely in my opinion when considering cases like the Egypt's judgments on the Muslim Brotherhood. It is hard to say that a court conviction is a sufficient standard for guilt. Should this paragraph be expanded upon to somehow discuss these nuances?
