Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Defamatory material in user namespace

The current wording excludes userpages and user sandboxes in their username space. I propose to refine the wording as follows:

Current
Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.
Proposed
Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Folks looking to "get back" at Wikipedia can be expected to look in every corner for libelous/libellous material. Lou Sander 18:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Google does an excellent job of finding every little thing on the Wikipedia website, so it doesn't take any special effort for anyone to find libelous material here and then spread it throughout the internet with the speed of cyberlightning. -- Fyslee 19:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a finished product. Issues arise that need to be discussed openly to arrive at a conclusion. The use of user space to carry on a discussion about what is or is not proper to put in the encyclopedia is a perfectly proper use of user space. BLP is about what we publish as our current encyclopedia article about someone. Carrying that to the talk page is somewhat unjustified but people have abused that space so it makes some sense since we can use user space instead to carry on conversations that include trying to find useable sources for negative data that was published at un unuseable source like some random blog. User space is included in our defamation policy and WP:WWIN. That's good enough. It would be harmful to the effective functioning of wikipedia as a NPOV encyclopedia to systematically limit discussion anywhere on wikipedia of negative unsourced material. NPOV trumps BLP. WAS 4.250 23:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sory, but no. Wikipedia is not a personal web page, neither it is an open discussion forum. And the issue is not about censorship. It is about abuse of Wikipedia server's to defame. This is not a joke, all it will take is a wealthy LP to sue the hell out of Wikimedia to shut us down. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow... you said it well WAS 4.250. I cant believe anyone would seriously suggest censoring a Wikipedian's userpage. That's wrong on so many levels. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 18:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Extremely wrong on many, many, many levels, absolutely yes. But think of the situation where User X is libeled/libelled on User Y's user page. User X could sue Foundation W to release the name of User Y, so as to make it possible to sue her. Foundation W could be forced to spend an awful lot of money resisting. A motivated plaintiff with a credible case can REALLY cause a lot of strife, even if they don't win. See HERE. (I'm just trying to help other editors—I, myself, steer extremely clear of putting potentially libelous/libellous words where anybody can Google them.) Lou Sander 19:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Censorship? We are guests here and Wikimedia makes the rules. They are not obligated to accomodate every wish a user might have, or to even be democratic. I think we are privileged to be allowed so much freedom here. Let's not abuse it, or allow others to misuse it to hurt others. Wikipedia is a pretty big "canon," and such "weapons" must be protected from misuse by malicious persons. -- Fyslee 19:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. I sense a great deal of naïvete and idealism in some of the comments above. See also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles about ongoing enterprises. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Quite a few Wikipedians, including administrators, bureaucrats, and who knows what other opinion leaders, are high-school or university students, or very recently were such. While they have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia, they rarely will have been involved in lawsuits, let alone have pockets deep enough to be thought of as targets (auto accidents, etc. excepted). What they know is what they've read here or elsewhere. In my wikiexperience, a lot of the potentially troublesome edits are made, or are supported, or are thought of as perfectly fine, by this enthusiastic crew of very young adults. IMHO we need to be VERY strong and specific about libel-related matters, because we can't expect the young people to have much life experience, pre-existing knowledge, or meaningful judgment about the subject. Lou Sander 23:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(<----) Don't conflate the two seperate policies: BLP and libel. No libel anywhere. Period. That is for the libel policy, not the BLP policy which deals with special sensitivity, morality, privacy and especially firm and quick application of Verifiability, No original research and NPOV for living persons. Especially firm and quick application of Verifiability, No original research and NPOV for all situations where legal liability comes into play is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles about ongoing enterprises. WAS 4.250 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if not legally actionable, dubious negative material about living people has no place in Wikipedia, including User subpages. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This has come up at User talk:Tbeatty. Is there a consensus to make this change, applying it throughout Wikipedia? I also am not clear if the policy applies only to people we have an article about, or to all living people. Some discussion at blocking policy. Tom Harrison Talk 17:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes. The issue here is harming people (from an ethical POV) and libel (from a legal one), and in neither case is there any excuse to exempt userspace, since it is picked up on Google just as easily. >Radiant< 17:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I made the change. As far as who it applies to, I want to be clear: 'All living people' includes run-of-the-mill editors like me, or just people about whom we maintain articles? Tom Harrison Talk 17:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I have considered this previously, and I think it should apply to all mentions of living people, including editors. However, this needs a separate and detailed discussion, as it would necessitate a widespread cultural change to be implemented. It bars labels that are now used two-a-penny to brand people as vandals, trolls and vanity editors, for a start. The positive aspect is that it would necessitate a more careful and considered approach in dialogue. I think the net effect would create a much more pleasant working environment. Tyrenius 18:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems like the same reasoning works for both editors and non-editors, unless there is a legal reason for us to give greater protection from libel to public figures. I think we can either limit BLP to article space (which is contrary to Jimbo's instructions as I understand them, and so a bad idea), or we include all living people under BLP. Tom Harrison Talk 19:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The essense of this policy is that there are moral and legal and practical reasons to treat articles about living people with a special sensitivity that would be out of place forarticles about buildings and such. This is an issue that is best defined in terms of its boundaries by the heart rather than by trying to come up with "bright lines". Calling a living person a "troll" on an article about them (which needs verifiability, relevance, and so forth) is very different than saying we as a community will behave towards editor Bush_Sucks in accord with our perception that his edits as documented in his contributions can be accurately characterised as Trollish (generally abbreviated to "Bush_Sucks is a troll.") WAS 4.250 20:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's true enough, and well understood. In this case I am not talking about material in articles, but about comments on user pages. Tom Harrison Talk
Provide a specific example if you with to "be clear". (Has someone dedicated their user page to claiming you have been suspected in Kennedy's murder?) WAS 4.250 21:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for signing for me. Briefly, User:Tbeatty said on his user talk page that Steven Jones told a lie, and cited a source he said supported that. User:Tyrenius removed it as a violation of BLP; Tbeatty said it was no such thing and restored it. Tyrenius blocked him, and admins weighed in on both sides. Eventually Tyrenius forwarded me a email from Jimbo that supported Tyrenius' position that BLP applied to user space as well. I had not understood that from policy as it was then, so today I tried to make it more clear. Now I would like to understand who it applies to in user space. All living people? Living people about whom we have articles? Living people not unlikely to cause trouble about it, or who? Tom Harrison Talk 21:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Off the top of my head I would think that talk pages should be governed exactly the same way as any other publicly accessible part of the project. It is simpler if we do it this way as well. --Guinnog 23:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

(<---)"Briefly, User:Tbeatty said on his user talk page that Steven Jones told a lie, and cited a source he said supported that." OK, I don't know who these people are but so far it seems someone says something and backs it with evidence. This is normal and expected behavior. "User:Tyrenius removed it as a violation of BLP" User:Tyrenius is a good guy. He should be consulted before being reverted. "Tbeatty said it was no such thing and restored it." I don't know Tbeatty. "Tyrenius blocked him, and admins weighed in on both sides." A link would be nice. "Eventually Tyrenius forwarded me a email from Jimbo that supported Tyrenius' position that BLP applied to user space as well." Jimbo is sometimes wrong, but with regard to this sort of thing trust Jimbo. "I had not understood that from policy as it was then, so today I tried to make it more clear." It's about morality not legalisms. "Now I would like to understand who it applies to in user space." Morality applies to everything. "All living people?" Yes of course. "Living people about whom we have articles?" Yes of course. "Living people not unlikely to cause trouble about it, or who?" Be especially nice to people who can't or won't defend themselves. WAS 4.250 02:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This one incident has been settled and is best left in the past. The important thing is to concentrate on a general policy for the future, which has been done, apart from deciding whether it also applies to editors of wikipedia. Tyrenius 03:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (on wikibreak)
Again, I have to set the record straight. This was a discussion about using Steven Jones as a source on someone elses user talk page. I made a comment without a reference. It was refactored as a BLP violation. I sourced the comment and restated it differently and this was deleted and I was blocked by the admin arguing that this person is okay to use as a source. --Tbeatty 21:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes and no. This specific incident illustrates Tom Harrison's concerns in a way that hand waving generalities don't. But you are right in suggesting the issue is not to resolve this specific case but to use it to illuminate "a general policy". Since I wrote the above, I looked into the situation a bit and discovered I do know of Steven Jones of 9/11 crackpot-theory fame after all. Should "crackpot" be deleted in the preceding sentence? I can't say I agree with your reaction (deleting negative content on a talk page) to having him called a liar on a talk page; but then I don't agree with reactions against your reaction either. In a society that pays physicists one percent of what it pays crackpots; I don't begrudge physicists that try to cash in with provocative theories. WAS 4.250 04:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I would personally say that yes, it is inappropriate to refer to anyone as a crackpot, and this word and all other insulting language should be avoided always. I say this, knowing that I have myself not always held to this high standard, and knowing that it is not always easy to do so. But we are better people when we can.--Jimbo Wales 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You are right. Very right. Damn, you're a good leader when you want to be. (I tried deleting the "damn" but the meaning changed.) WAS 4.250 23:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Matching name with category

Given that the holding category is Category:Living people, shouldn't this be named Wikipedia:Biographies of living people and {{Blp}} use the same terminology? --kingboyk 06:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments on BLP template image

Comments requested at Template_talk:Blp#Image_change and Template_talk:Blp#Suggested_WP:BLP_logos. Thanks. Carcharoth 19:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


I would like to add language

Based on court rulings that protects journalists. In addition to NPOV and WP:RS and WP:V, we should explicitly say "accurate and disinterested". THis is the standard by which journalists cover subjects that are notable but perhaps not famous. Here is the case. --Tbeatty 02:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Procedure/policies when the subject dies?

Hi, I've been concerned by the way the recent death of Steve Irwin was handled on the pages Steve Irwin and Terri Irwin. I have commented on the relevant talk pages, and the responses have been courteous and sensible, but I wonder if this is worthy of some wider debate. In short, I found it disquieting that the content on these pages was so bluntly edited and in so incredibly short a time (ignoring the inevitable vandalisms, which are not what i am talking about). For example, having the whole Steve Irwin article edited into the past tense immediately upon hearing the news of his death seems unnecessarily brutal to me, and seems to serve no useful purpose. The same with changing Terri Irwin's article from "wife" to "widow". My preferred means of handling the events would have been to insert a Breaking News box at the top of the Steve Irwin article, stating that Steve had been reported killed, then that box would be updated to reflect the incoming news. During that time, the main body of the article would been left essentially untouched (or even locked). Once the news settled down, the article could have been re-written. Now I have found that this point of view is not necessarily a popular one here, but I have had some comments of support. I don't want to compormise Wikipedia's reputation for being incredibly up-to-date, but I think that that reputation could be kept intact in a more sensitive fashion (ie, mention the news as it is happening, but don't completely re-write the article while the news is still fresh. That looks over-eager to me. Anyway, whatever the concensus view turns out to be on this subject, I think that these kinds of situation warrant some considered and documented WP policy, if only to prevent the same old arguments happening every time. Thanks heaps. Leeborkman 05:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I can understand your concern but I love the way Wiki updates to the second. If that changes, I wont be wiki-ing anymore. But the majority rules. Let see if the majority thinks the same. It will be fast. This is wikipedia.

"Haste maketh waste." John Heywood (1546) Lou Sander 12:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI

"Law.com: What is your liability for inaccurate information that's posted on the Web site?

Bradford A. Patrick: Our belief is that since every post is attributed to an individual, is time-stamped and is retained in the database, the foundation itself is not publishing that content. We view individual editors as responsible and have prominently displayed on every edit page that individuals are responsible for their own contributions. We take the position that we are a service provider and are protected under §230. We try to emphasize to everyone who posts that they, as publishers, have responsibility for what they add. "[1] WAS 4.250 06:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Libelous images?

The biographical article on Thaksin Shinawatra contains a link to Thaksin Get Out, which shows an image (Thaksin3.jpg) which I consider to be libelous and inappropriate for Wikipedia. The text under the image claims that it is a protest poster, but the image metadata says that the image is a photoshop document. What is Wikipedia's policy torwards defamations of an individual's image? Patiwat 18:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That image is original research, and should be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This policy isn't working at all

BLP official policy: "While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles remain welcome to edit articles to correct inaccuracies, to remove inaccurate or unsourced material, or to remove libel." This policy appears to be a smokescreen. At the very minimum, there is no enforcement, and no provision for redress if a subject of an article feels that he is prevented from implementing the policy. There are numerous admins on Wikipedia who contend that a banned user who is the subject of an article forfeits this welcome, and has no right to "correct inaccuracies, to remove inaccurate or unsourced material, or to remove libel." That makes this BLP a dead letter, and it isn't worth the pixels it takes to display it. Remember, it takes only one admin to ban a user forever. I was banned by Gamaliel on April 5, 2006 because I was trying to explain that a new federal criminal law affects many Wikipedia editors. I appealed my ban to the mailing list and have proof that my appeal was received, but my appeal was ignored. I have been repeatedly reverted while attempting to correct information on my article. --Daniel Brandt 68.90.165.190 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, somebody in contruction of Wikipedia has forgotten to give blocked users access to Arbcom and ANI request pages to defend themselves, and also access to their own BLP articles and talk pages, if they have them. The first problems have been pointed out many times, to large yawning. This is just another case of blocked users treated as guilty-without-trial. It's ugly, and while it stays as policy, it says something about Wikipedia itself. SBHarris 07:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, Daniel Brandt, to the policy you inspired. It is important that even banned people such as yourself have the chance to speak concerning what wikipedia has to say about them both on articles about them and on articles that mention them in passing. It is also important that wikipedia do its best to present verifiable, unbiased, encyclopedic, nonprivacy-invading information on every subject a concerned citizen might need to know about. You are such a subject. Your life and activities have been about civil rights and other things a concerned citizen has a right to know about. You have more than a mere voice on a talk page. You have the ear of newspapers and a site of your own as well as other sites you frequent. You do not lack a voice. Wikipedia has not been deaf to you. But, no, you don't get to own the article about you. But, in any case, thanks for saying that living people ought to be treated special. You were right. WAS 4.250 09:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Treat others as you would want them to treat you? LOL

The entire problem is that this is NOT the policy in a nutshell for BLP on Wikipedia. Which I suppose is why it's up as a wistful-ism on the TALK page, instead of PROJECT page. SBHarris 07:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nutshell again!

Hi.

Doesn't the nutshell seem to imply that for articles not about living persons one can be a little less (alhtough probably not a whole lot) rigorous about adhering/enforcing the NPOV and V policies? Is this correct? Or is a slight "laxity" on such articles as condemnded as ever as it is here, if you get my drift? If so, perhaps that should be made clear in other places, then? 70.101.145.211 02:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

For living people, you can and should delete unsourced negativity immediately, without discussion or 3RR penalty. For dead people and other things, you talk it over first. Lou Sander 03:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
We have a lot of unsourced science articles written years ago whose deletion would be considered vandalism. Sourcing everything will take time and the priority is where being unsourced can cause the most damage. Deleting thousands of articles simply based on rigorousness would damage wikipedia to no good end. That is also why we delete negative unsourced data on bios of living people - not to make it all nicey nice but because that is a priority because of potential damage. Nicy nice unsourced stuff in a bio of a scum-bucket who should not get elected can cause damage of a different kind and thus source or delete immediately can be important for nonnegative data in an article too. Please never forget we also delete true but not relevant to noteability data for not-so-important persons as they have a legal and moral right to privacy. WAS 4.250 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
What is this "different kind of damage"? 70.101.145.211 07:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia exists to make the world better. People donate time and money to make the world better. Making the world worse defeats the whle point. The idea of Wikipedia is knowledge is a good thing. There are exceptions. Everyone knowing details of someone's life that they have legal privacy rights concerning is an example. Using that as an excuse to delete that someone running for office eats baby humans for breakfast is a bad thing. Nicy nice unsourced stuff distracting from sourced data that he eats human babies for breakfast is also bad. WAS 4.250 13:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • How* is it also bad, ie. how does it harm the subject of the biography? Or is it becaue it could mislead someone else into thinking that they aren't all that bad despite their deeds? 74.38.32.128 06:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It's the latter. Imagine an article on Hitler with all the nasty stuff deleted and lots of nice fluffy stuff about how he was a vegetarian, and a great artist, and cared a lot about the German people. Unsourced positive material about politicians and religious leaders is *very very dangerous*.

24.59.105.229 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Singapore libel laws

I just found some stuff on extremely strict libel laws that can be enforced against Internet publishers, cybercafe operators, etc. See it HERE. Lou Sander 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Wikipedia incorporates considerations for Singapore libel laws into its policy? --kizzle 20:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Just letting people know. Some folks think "Hey, if it's true, it's not libel," and "you can't libel a public figure." Others think it's cool to take a little dope to Singapore. Lou Sander 21:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard seems short-handed

Just FYI, the few editors that are active on the noticeboard seem overworked. I made a post there days ago hoping to get some input from a third party "BLP expert." Instead I am having the same back and forth with one admin that we might have had on our own talk pages. I'd appreciate it if a few of you would take a look at WP:BLPN#Dave Carter even if it is just to tell me that I'm out of line. The case is complex enough that it will take a bit of your time, so thanks to any of you that do this. -MrFizyx 03:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#How_does_living_bio_patrol_work. The Noticeboard, associated patrol WP:BLPP, and other issues are still very fresh and how to handle it is still building consensus. That said, I'll look at it and offer a TO or RfC. Electrawn 12:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Modifying policy page?

I'm not sure how appropriate it is for Filceolaire to modify the policy page, particularly since his edit summary concludes that the Enquirer is not a reliable source. At one time, it is true that the Enquirer was not much more reliable than The Weekly World News. However, after several lawsuits some years back, they have vastly improved their journalistic practices. I would challenge anyone who believes that they are unreliable to provide any examples from, say, the last three years, where they got a story wrong. Crockspot 17:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Shouldn't biographies of living persons automatically be semi-protected? This would not only avoid vandalism and libel, but would discourage people from anonymously editing their own articles. Rm999 05:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it is not going to happen because (1) the german solution is far better and some version of that will be implemented in wikipedia within a year (2) there is a very influential active and longstanding wikipedian subset of people (the word "group" would mistakenly connote organization) that is all about maximum freedom to the point of anarchy (3) Jimbo himself appears against it - perhaps for fear of killing the goose that lays the golden egg (the exact recipe for wikipedia's success is a matter of guesswork). WAS 4.250 08:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing the "nutshell" synopsis

Two of us have now removed the "nutshell" synopsis at the top of the page in favor of merging it back into the opening paragraph. The "nutshell" boxes were created on the premise that not all readers will read the whole page. And that's a reasonable assumption given the number of policy pages we have and the size of some of them. However, new users did generally read the opening paragraph and then skimmed the rest of the page.

The nutshell box was an interesting experiment but it is becoming increasingly clear that the infobox format is actually distracting readers from the real meaning of the page and is causing more harm than good. It presents an incomplete understanding of the issues and has led new readers to false conclusions. They are inevitably a cursory and incomplete explanation of the page. Half the time, they are completely redundant to the opening paragraph of the policy page. Few readers actually read them because they get lost among the other boilerplate infoboxes like the "this is official policy" box. The "nutshell" box on this particular page is not redundant but only because the opening paragraph has effectively been chopped in two. This creates a split in the flow of the opening paragraphs and decreases the readability of the page. We should not be deliberately placing barriers in the way of the readers' comprehension of the page.

The text of the nutshell box on this page should be merged back into the introductory paragraph of the page. user:Crum375 has reverted that edit saying that it needs talk-page consensus. Personally, I think he/she is splitting hairs. Whether or not the text is presented in a paragraph format or an infobox format is a relatively minor style question. The meaning and even the wording remains unchanged. However, since Crum apparently feels quite strongly about this, I ask for the community's opinion. Rossami (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously this has further implications than just this specific page/policy, as one would expect that a uniform style or meta-policy should be maintained across the various policies that currently have a nutshell. I personally find the nutshells very useful, and have found them even more useful in my early days before I had the chance to read the policies proper in greater detail. I think it may make sense to move this discussion to a more general area, and put it to a community consensus or vote, applicable to all relevant policies. Crum375 02:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nutshells are a useful official summary. The content of the nutshell should be repeated in the intro (not necessarily exactly) because "Few readers actually read them because they get lost among the other boilerplate infoboxes like the 'this is official policy' box.". WAS 4.250 10:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, nutshells are useful, but often too brief. In the non-Wiki world, multi-page policies, etc. often have an Executive Summary of a half to a full page. We don't have them here, and IMHO they could be very useful. I use this executive summary of the [WP:BLP] policy:
WP:BLP is an official policy. It's kind of long, making it hard to understand unless you read it carefully and repeatedly.
Here is the policy in its official nutshell:
This page in a nutshell: Articles about living persons must adhere strictly to NPOV and verifiability policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.
Here are some key points taken verbatim from the body of the policy:
  • Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
  • The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
  • Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.
  • (For non-public figures such as family members): Editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. ...Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source.
  • In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, ...
  • If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
  • The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.
I may have posted this here a while back. Sorry if it's unwelcome duplication Lou Sander 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles on "Living" Organizations

I seem to vaguely remember some sort of policy similar to the BLP standards, only for existing organizations. Does anyone know of such a policy and where, if it exists, I might find it? There are several articles where negative nicknames are put in articles without citation. If there is a policy, I'd like to use it to challenge these kinds of uncivil additions. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises is a proposed policy. Tom Harrison Talk 14:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

When in doubt...

WP:BLP instructs user only to remove unsourced criticism, not unsourced content that praises individuals. The question I pose is when unsourced content that could be construed as criticism is present in an article, shoulda a user assume that WP:BLP applies and remove the content without discussion? For example, on the article on Kendrick Meek there is a section titled "The One Florida Sit In." The content in this section, none of which is sourced, could be damaging for Meek's reelection campaign because it shows discord between him and Governor Jeb Bush, or it could be a rallying cause because he's standing up to the entrenched interests. In summary, when in doubt about a content's affect on a living person, should we remove the content without discussion? I think so. DRK 04:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove seriously-questionable definitely-inadequately-sourced material whereever you find it whenever you find it. See this for an example. Always adequately investigate using google, reading the history of the article, reading the talk page of the article and looking at the contributions of the person who added it. Deleting true stuff by well meaning but uninformed enthusiasts hurts wikipedia too. WAS 4.250 13:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding the article Nigel McGuinness

His real name is available through the United States Trademark & Patent Office's website on the trademark of his gimmick name, yet someone keeps removing it (apparently his webmistress) citing that he doesn't want his real name available. Should we leave it out even if it's citable? --James Duggan 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the problem is that the article reads like it is about a person, when in fact it is about a character played by a person. None of the "facts" are sourced to credible real world documentation. It is possibly all fiction. The article should clearly distinguish between the fantasy world of pro-wrestling and the real world of trademarks, driving licenses, parents, contracts, and legal documentation showing birth and education data. WAS 4.250 09:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life.

"Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life." - IMO that's pretty much the rationale for this policy. Well, the real rationale is bad press from the Siegenthaler fuss and Danny's ever-ringing phone. But this sentence encapsulates why living bios need the closest of attention. It may help alleviate the problematic use of the word 'sensitive', which has been taken in practice to mean 'sympathetic point of view.' Thoughts? - David Gerard 21:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nuts (again)

I personally think the nuts are a very useful addition to the policy/guideline pages, and help with a quick appreciation and retension of the key salient points of a policy. We have been through this before. I think that prior to removing them there should be a discussion, and consensus for doing so, and whatever is decided should be applicable to all relevant pages. Crum375 23:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There was neither discussion nor consensus prior to their addition, and there is at present centralized discussion at Template talk:Policy in a nutshell about removing all of them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
If there is discussion, then we should wait for a resolution and community-wide consensus. This is not an issue for one page only, but for all the WP policies and guidelines, potentially. To many editors, this is the face of WP, while they learn (and review) the ropes. To me personally, reading the nutshells was very helpful and is still useful even today. I am sure I am not alone. Let's leave the status quo until some consensus is reached for change. Thanks, Crum375 23:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, this discussion is moot. The nutshell appears to have been purged from the history. Crockspot 00:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The template was broken, which I just fixed. Crum375 00:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the centralized decision, I think that this particular "nutshell" summary is one of the worst. It's a full paragraph which still fails to sum up the policy page in any meaningful way. And no, I don't think it can be fixed. In my opinion, this page would be improved without the "nutshell". Rossami (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
If this nutshell text needs fixing, and I think most of them could stand at least some tweaking, then the way to fix it is by modifying it, not deleting it. Crum375 00:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This is one of several policies that cannot be meaningfully summed up in a sentence or two, so any effort at nutshelling it will misrepresent it by default. >Radiant< 09:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You realise of course I'm going to take that as a challenge.
Here's an attempt:
Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life. They must therefore be written with the greatest of care and attention to neutrality, verifiability and no original research.
Tell me what important aspects of WP:BLP aren't trivially derivable from those two simple sentences - David Gerard 10:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I like those sentences very much, especially the second one. It would be good if the words "affect the subject's life" could somehow be made more specific about the "affecting". At the outer limits, articles can affect subjects' lives by making them fumingly angry, by provoking them to expose Wikipedia and Wikipedians to legal action in various jurisdictions around the world, etc.
Also, improper content in living people articles can have special effects outside the lives of the subjects themselves. It can incite edit wars, retaliation, etc. It can diminish Wikipedia's reputation, cause us trouble, etc., through reactions from neutral readers, from friends and supporters of the subjects, from accurate news reports of non-neutral content, and so forth. All of this can happen with other articles, of course, but it seems to me especially likely with stuff about living people. Lou Sander 14:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
As you say, other articles can have this effect too. For example, articles about 'living organizations', religions, etc. In this case, I think David Gerard's wording is actually pretty reasonable - when a person's life can be affected by an article, it can elicit all kinds of responses, from mild to severe, as you mention. But I am not sure we need to go into the possible responses inside the nutshell (or even in the article, per WP:BEAN). Crum375 14:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a stray thought, but I think the goal of some who add negative info to BLP articles is precisely TO affect the subject's life, ie., destroy their reputation, prevent their re-election, etc. It is unfortunate that there are far too many editors who use this project as their own personal cudgel. Crockspot 14:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This may well be so, and it is incumbent on all other well meaning editors (hopefully and optimistically the vast majority) to ensure that all inserted material strictly adheres to WP:V, WP:N, WP:BLP, etc. Crum375 14:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. But no rule can guard against malice, and certainly removing nutshells won't protect against malice. I'll put the nutshell back with the above text and see if anyone coughs up their own skulls in disgust - David Gerard 15:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This one's pretty good; however the end part of the sentence sounds weird ('paying attention to no original research'); a better idea might be to explitly mention sourcing. >Radiant< 15:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:CITE isn't a core content policy (and is part of verifiability anyway) and WP:RS is a disaster in practical terms, both for the articles (when people robotically gut articles of useful material from a source the guideline says is any less than perfection) and for public relations (people with living bios are getting noticeably pissed off with its effects, when a newspaper error or lie proves impossible for them to get corrected ... I get to deal with them and Danny gets to deal with LOTS of them) - I would be very loath even to allude to it in the nutshell. I've changed it back to NOR for now, but capitalised it to make the sentence somewhat less weird - David Gerard 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
And of course Radiant! has done the obvious that I missed :-) - David Gerard 16:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Current nutshell lists neut, ver, orig in that order. It is then followed by material mentioning ver, neut, orig in that order. Would someone please put them in the same order? (I like ver, neut, orig, because of the big emphasis on avoiding unverifiable negative claims.) Lou Sander 01:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. Tyrenius 02:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

NYT on obituaries

From Danny: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/business/media/25asktheeditors.html

You should all read this (you need to log in, but these things happen). It answers a pile of relevant questions for Wikipedia: notability, how to write a good bio, research ... fantastic stuff. Our best bio articles resemble a well-written obituary, whether the person is alive or not, and too many of our bio articles only become any good at all when the subject dies and we have good newspaper obits to crib from - this article should be helpful to good editors in making good bio articles that are certainly up to NYT quality - David Gerard 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can glean any key points that you think BLP/WP is missing, please add them to BLP or elsewhere as you see fit. Thanks, Crum375 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To what extent does this apply to talk pages?

If for example someone said that they thought a living person was a liar, would that be included? JoshuaZ 05:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My current understanding is that this policy extends across all namespaces with new updates that have been applied over the last couple of days.--MONGO 05:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Tbeatty said on his user talk page that Steven Jones told a lie, and cited a source he said supported that. User:Tyrenius removed it as a violation of BLP; Tbeatty said it was no such thing and restored it. Tyrenius blocked him, and admins weighed in on both sides. Eventually Tyrenius forwarded me a email from Jimbo that supported Tyrenius' position that BLP applied to user space as well. I had not understood that from policy as it was then, so today I tried to make it more clear. Now I would like to understand who it applies to in user space. All living people? Living people about whom we have articles? Living people not unlikely to cause trouble about it, or who? Tom Harrison Talk 21:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (copied from the "Defamatory material in user namespace" subsection above by WAS 4.250 05:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC))
You have the sequence wrong. I initially provided an unsourced statement. It was refactored by Tyrenius. I then provided a source and reworded it. I was then blocked. I was essentially blocked for restating my initial unsourced claim with a source. Tyrenius essentially didn't believe my source was adequate for the claim but rather than dispute it (or refactor it) he blocked me. --Tbeatty 06:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I do have the sequence wrong; I cut and over-simplified to illustrate the point. Mine is not a good description for any other purpose. Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Without making any comment on the current issue, I just wanted to say that I did not mean to imply that "BLP applies to userpages" -- at least not in full, not just stated flatly like that. At the same time, libelling people on userpages is a bad iea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 08:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in. I believe, as far as I know, that Tbeatty made the comment that this gentleman "lied" and later provided a reference which didn't state that a lie had been committed. The comment made by Tbeatty was on one maybe two talk pages that I know of, and never in article space. I can provide the links, but I'll assume you believe me on this matter. However, of course, there really is no reason to be misrepresenting the wording of a reference anywhere, but just wanted to clarify that this only happened on a talk page, so I felt it was a grey area and somewhat unclarified. Now that we know where this issue stands (and it should be obvious anyway), all should be expected to not do this kind of thing in the future.--MONGO 10:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The comment I removed is this one and I saw it merely as a comment on a talk page...the reference that his comment was based on is this one. So, the issue is, is a comment like this, with a reference that doesn't fully support the comment, a blockable offense if made on a usertalk page? I would be inclined to see that it is, certainly at this point. I think...Just don't do this...is reasonable for future reference.--MONGO 11:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has reviewed and commented specifically on this incident. Tyrenius 11:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that as well, his comment above, indicated, in my opinion, that there was some latitude to be expected in userpages, but not much of course. At this point, I am merely seeking complete policy clarification so this can be enforced universally...as there are many folks that are indeed violating talk pages and userpages in this manner.--MONGO 11:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's much latitude in "using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". I think it's time for a clean-up. Obviously standards have been allowed to slip and become lax. Tightening them up can only be in wikipedia's interest as a reputable organisation. Obviously it's a question of pointing people to Jimbo's quote in the first instance, and I'm sure most users will take that on board responsibly. Those that don't can be helped to do so. Tyrenius 12:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (trying to take a wikibreak)
Yes, certainly. The questions I need answered is what is the cut-off...where is the dividing line between free speech and libel? I suppose it's a matter of making the best call, and obvious breaches of misrepresentations need to be dealt with immediately.--MONGO 12:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the line comes where the credible sources stop and the blogs begin, which is pretty much what Jimbo was saying. We also need to be careful about apperaring to draw inferences form what the reliable sources say, of course. When in doubt, take it to Talk first. Of course we can discuss the appropriateness of a given link or phrase on Talk, provided it is not patently ludicrous, but I completely agree that Tbeatty did a wrong thing here, and that from the perspective of one who pretty much shares Tbeatty's view of Jones. Once you are aware that a given statement is viewed as problematic, the utmost care is demanded in restating it. Guy 12:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have asked elsewhere: TyreniusTbeatty said on his talk page that Steven Jones told a lie. User:His excellency said on his talk page that Tom Harrison is a racist. Does BLP apply to one and not the other? Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean Tbeatty said that about Jones (and it is not a good idea to repeat it endlessly). I presume also that Tom Harrison has not said he (Tom Harrison) is racist, that there are not any verifiable secondary sources that say this and that there are no racist remarks that Tom Harrison has made on wiki, which would justify the accusation. Firstly it is a personal attack. Secondly, User:Tom harrison is a living person, so entitled to the same courtesy as anyone else (per BLP or other relevant guidelines) so BLP does apply. There is a slight difference for editors, as certain evidence may be present, which can be verified as it is attributed to their user name. Tyrenius 13:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry, corrected.) I agree. That means that removing, and blocking for, at least some personal attacks is required by BLP policy, and deserves the same enthusiastic action that some have reserved for BLP issues. Tom Harrison Talk 14:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
In the case you mention of an attack on Tom Harrison, BLP isn't necessary, as it's covered by WP:NPA. He seems to have already been censured for any remarks, as there is an ArbCom ruling "His excellency is placed on personal attack parole". Tyrenius 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hardly, and what was done was only after weeks of arbitration during which the charge was repeated and enlarged upon (details minimized to avoid drawing in others who were the primary target of the attacks). If we are going to immediately remove and block for "X lied" on a user page, then fine, let's do that; But let's do it for everyone. Tom Harrison Talk 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the case, but if such an accusation had been made, I would have no reservation about warning the user not to make it, and, in the event of persistence, blocking that user, until such time as they refrained from doing so, under NPA, CIVIL, BLP and on the basis that it is totally unacceptable to use wiki space for such a purpose. I now understand what you're saying, and I'm with you on it all the way. Let's disseminate an understanding of this between admins and all editors. Tyrenius 16:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's guidance

Jimbo's guidance is stricter than necessitated by libel, just as wiki's image fair use policy is stricter than legally required. He's also indicated that wiki is not a "free speech zone for trolls"[2] Wikipedia:What is a troll includes, "spreading some personal views in an inappropriate way." Jimbo's comment reinforces the existing guideline against polemic on user pages.[3] It is a divisive and provocative practice to use them for polemic, and mitigates against a desirable collegiate environment. It might be useful to think how someone working on a standard work, e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica, would be expected to present themselves (i.e. in an intellectually objective manner) in order to maintain the reputation of their employer. This is entirely different from using user (sub) pages in a NPOV way to draft an article or to build up sound referenced material which can be used subsequently in an article.

There are two separate, but sometimes related, issues:

  • "absolutely meticulous attention to detail when writing about living persons"[4]
  • "using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea"

I am making a modification to WP:USER to emphasise the latter, which is the right venue for that issue.

Tyrenius 13:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that WP:NPA was everywhere and WP:BLP referred to article space/or areas aside from userpages generally.--MONGO 14:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
NPA relates to editors. Libel relates to anywhere. BLP is primarily about articles, but it did already contain a wider mandate, "This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia". This mandate has now been made even clearer. Tyrenius 15:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Sort of clearer: "I did not mean to imply that "BLP applies to userpages" -- at least not in full, not just stated flatly like that." Tom Harrison Talk 15:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
That is the grey area I am talking (writing) about. Obviously, one must always use discretion in their choice of words.--MONGO 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I presumed that the caveat "not in full, not just stated flatly like that" was because BLP is primarily aimed at writing articles, so obviously there are likely to be aspects which don't apply, but that the points relating to placing negative material about living people on wiki do apply. A concerted effort to maintain this mandate will raise wikipedia's ethical and behavioural standards.

In implementation (to quote Jimbo again) "That is not to say that every single case of this type deserves a block; admins must make careful judgments about particular cases." I don't want to harp on about Tbeatty, but in that case I based my decision on the fact that I had pointed out that it was unacceptable, that this warning had been removed with a flippant edit summary indicating that it had not been taken seriously,[5] and that similar material (not justified by the source referenced) had been posted again. The block was preventative to stop more being posted, as I considered that Tbeatty showed no sign of accepting this should not be done. I think my judgement was correct, as an even worse statement was subsequently posted, which was then removed "per Jimbo Wales" by MONGO,[6] and even now he (I presume from the anon post) is continuing to maintain he was right.

Tyrenius 16:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I support removing personal attacks and blocking to prevent them, and I think BLP applies to you and me as well as to George Bush, and I'm glad we agree about those. I have been disappointed and annoyed to see how we rush to correct some things and how apathetic we are about others. But, we need to be careful to not make too much from Jimbo's rather cautious statement. Removing the comment from Tbeatty' page was the right thing to do, we now know. I'm not sure we know a lot more than that. I thought BLP did not apply in user space. That's not the case, but neither is it the case that "BLP applies to user pages" in full or without qualitication. Tom Harrison Talk 22:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It really wasn't my user page! :) Would it do the trick to use this section of BLP in combination with bullet point 5 of WP:USER (with Jimbo quote). I have always addressed personal attacks on editors, as well as derogatory comments on living people, including those which often occur where there is biographical content on AfDs. I have these links on my user page and they are worth careful study.[7][8][9] I think such observations are not as widely known as they should be. Tyrenius 23:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's understand the context as well. This discussion was about a person being suitable as a source. Since we are no longer able to have frank and open discussions about sources and their pitfalls since it may convey negative information, what should we do?--Tbeatty 15:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think there were some excesses, such as Tyrenius at one point even redacting my description of what you wrote. We have to be able to work. There has to be the possibility of saying, 'Charles Manson is a murderer,' and then having a discussion about it if anyone disagrees, and talking about what links are needed to source the statement. Tom Harrison Talk 15:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Finality [10]--MONGO 16:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole point is that we don't start with the accusation and then look for the sources to justify it.[11] We start with the reliable sources, find out what information is there, stick to it accurately, without interpretation or speculation, and then the requirements are satisfied. In the case of Charles Manson, I am sure there will be no problem with reliable sources. Description of a libel repeats the libel and is still a libel, that is why I refactored. There was an unnecessary repetition of the original statement. I suggest a bit more refactoring is in order in this respect. There is no problem discussing something and asking sensible questions. It is when accusations or inaccurate/unsubstantiated statements are made that we are in the wrong territory. Tyrenius 16:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to let you take your break and won't say any more about this for a while, but seriously, you need to stop saying I libeled anyone. Libel is a fairly serious crime, and I object to being repeatedly accused of it without any basis. Tom Harrison Talk 17:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I ask that you refactor your statement concerning libel. Libel is a crime. No crime was committed and the accusation is a violation of the very rule you are emphasizing. You have no source that libel has occurred and you have repreated it many times. This seems to be a direct contradiction of your entire point. --Tbeatty 17:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Libel is a civil tort matter in most places in the world, not a crime. However, it IS still a crime in some countries and some circumstances. See the article on libel for more. I seem to remember libel's a crime in some provinces of Canada, which makes Canadians seem to think it must generally be so in the West. It isn't. SBHarris 19:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It can be a civil matter but it can also be criminal including the state of Florida. [12]. Either way, it's a finding by a court which has not been done. The accusation should be refactored. --Tbeatty 21:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

(<---)With absolutely no evidence or agreement from either side, I am going to declare a truce between the side that said someone was a liar and the side that said someone had committed libel. Let it go. Prove you are above this. WAS 4.250 23:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It is necessary to pay "absolutely meticulous attention to detail when writing about living persons" (Jimbo Wales quoted above), one of whom I happen to be also. The statements above that I have accused Tom Harrison and Tbeatty of libel are a classic case of "a conjectural interpretation of a source" per WP:BLP. You will note that my post referred to does not make such accusations. It does not say, "Tom Harrison committed libel". It does not say "Tbeatty committed libel". It has merely been interpreted in that way.
It says, "Description of a libel repeats the libel and is still a libel, that is why I refactored." It does not actually say that the refactored statement or the original statement is a libel. The original statement was a dangerous one to make (accusing someone of lying in their professional work) and we shouldn't hang around to find out whether it is libel or not. We should get rid of it to protect the project from the possibility of libel. If it is indeed a libel, then describing it increases the libel. I assumed Tom Harrison didn't know this, or else he would not have repeated it, as he is an admin and a responsible editor, so I pointed it out to him for information. I refactored it for the same reason as the original needed to be refactored, namely it is a very dangerous one to make and we shouldn't hang around to find out whether it is libel or not — because, if it is, then description of a libel repeats the libel and is still a libel, that is why I refactored.
Tyrenius 01:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yet the second statement which I sourced, and you blocked me for, did not say anyone lied yet you can read between the lines on my edits but not your own. Interesting double standard. --Tbeatty 02:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no reading between the lines on your second statement and no double standard. There is only reading the lines exactly as they are written, namely your unsubstantiated claim of Steven Jones' "suspension for misrepresenting his research".[13] There is already a full discussion about this your talk page. It is also specifically discussed on MONGO's talk page, and you were told about it by Jimbo Wales. I suggest you take his guidance on board, and get on with something more productive rather than going over the same ground all over again. Tyrenius 03:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Unlike most policies, isn't any discussion of BLP/LIVING considered "final word" if it comes from Jimbo and/or the office and non-negotiable, as it involves the legal protection of the project? Not trying to start any trouble, simply curious. · XP · 05:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Test Case?

I am posting here rather than on ANI as I can't seem to tell if this has been resolved. So is this verboten under the libel policy on talk pages? --Mmx1 01:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems someone has discovered that searching YouTube for "Evil succubus;" results in a video "Blabber and Smoke" which has images of Condoleeza Rice. I would say per Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material that it fails on grounds of not meeting WP:RS standards and effectively being a conjectural interpretation, in regards to the serious import for which it is being cited, so it should be removed. The bottom line is that it does not demonstrate the required standard of conduct we are seeking to achieve towards living people. Tyrenius 02:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a whitespace between the link and "Evil Succubus". That was the user's label for the link, not the search query. (The result of such a query is less interesting[14]). --Mmx1 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Surely then it's an open and shut case, and quite unacceptable for an editor to come up with such a title of their own devising as the obvious implication is that it applies to the person depicted in the video. I've reverted it and left a warning. Someone else will have to follow up, as I really am taking a wikibreak. Tyrenius 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon or named individuals

Just a thought reading this... if the subject of the comment is known and identifiable, be they editor or subject of an article, BLP should plus NPA should apply. As in, if Tom Harrison were a known, living person, who could be libeled: Tom Harrison of Somewhere USA, known quanity. But "XP"--whos that? It's a fictitious alias. In that case, only NPA counts. Another way would be if Bill Gates were libeled, NPA counts. If he edited under the secret alias of User:RedmondGuy5, then only NPA counts, unless it was established that RedmondGuy5 is in fact Bill Gates. Then both again. That would seem most logical, straightforward, and plain. Beyond that, I agree with Jimbo's interpretation that all policy is applicable on all pages without exception, regardless of "space" they occupy. · XP · 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an unnecessary complication. Keep it simple. Tyrenius 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, good point. It was just a random (overly complicated) thought. · XP · 19:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Purpose

Sorry if this has been raised before, as I haven't watched this talk, but does anyone else feel that much of this page amounts to "follow the content policies, and this time we really, really mean it." What is the corollary to "The article itself must be edited with a [adjective needed?] degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies"? That on non-BLP pages a less than strict adherence to our content policies is acceptable? Shouldn't this emphasize a difference b/w BLPs and other articles, rather than just reiterate V, NOR, NPOV? Marskell 17:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverting to follow WP:V on other issues is limited by the 3rr. Reverting to follow WP:V for negative information regarding living people is not only an exception to 3rr, it is actively encouraged. JBKramer 17:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, can we put that in the intro or the nutshell? I often worry that when policy pages get longish and turn into essays, generic formulations of "be careful," "be polite," etc. obscure specific criteria that people ought to immediately notice. Marskell 17:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of this talk is about clarifying that the caution applied to BLP is in fact mandatory in mentions of living people, wherever it occurs on wiki, including user space. There is also discussion on its applicability to editors, which I do not think has been considered previously. Wiki editors are also, of course, living people, generally speaking. :) Tyrenius 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That content policies are mandatory applies everywhere, and if the user space is the exception then, again, why is that not in the intro or nutshell? Until the third bullet of the first level two section there is nothing original on this page. That it applies to user space is important; that it supercedes 3rr is important; the various analyses of subjects editing articles about themselves is important. Make that initial, rather than the exhortations we have initially at the moment. "We must get the article right." We must make it verifiable (if that is the definition of right), which may or may not be true (if that is the definition of right). Again, that applies everywhere. I read the Jimbo bit and our sentence misses the target, because, simple as it is, it seems to imply we should be able to deduce final truth statements, which we cannot do. OJ did or did not kill his wife—only he knows what is right. Marskell 22:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Sofixit! I think we're concluding that user space is not an exception, through a combination of WP:BLP, WP:USER (and WP:TPG for that matter). Tyrenius 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hm.
I have watched the "big three". "Sofixtit" is an excellent piece of advice in general on Wikipedia, but is not practically or theoretically sensible on policy pages. Practically, your edit won't stick because people are conservative re original introductions to our policy pages and will revert you (this is a good thing, IMO). Theoretically it makes no sense, because (assuming good faith intent) one's working within policy, to refine policy, validates policy (i.e., you aren't fixing anything, but talking about how to say it). For instance, I'm not suggesting some overturning of BLP, but only suggesting clarity re how orignial it is. Let's immediately, clearly, state how the application of this differs from the normal application of the content policies. This isn't something to "fix," but rather something to render clearly. Marskell 00:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you redraft here or somewhere else suitable then. Tyrenius 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'll start another essay in userspace and forget about it tomorrow :). If, by chance, I don't forget about this one, I'll tell you. Marskell 01:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-biographies containing biographical material

Maybe the policy should mention articles of this nature. Articles about Ann Coulter's books, for example Godless, frequently receive edits that defame the author, but it isn't crystal clear that WP:BLP applies to the articles about the books. IMHO, the policy should apply, and that fact should explicitly be made clear. Lou Sander 12:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It says right in the intro: "These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles." How much more clear can that be? Crockspot 14:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Um, maybe put it in big, bold, flashing colored type so I won't miss it when I read it? [I could swear I looked and looked for it before making the above post]. ;-) Lou Sander 20:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •  :) you are of course free to edit the page if you think it requires clarification. >Radiant< 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Negative -> Controversial

BLPs are not an NPOV-free zone. Anything encouraging Sympathetic Point Of View is bad. In case you're wondering, our articles on pop culture figures are already hagiographies maintained by ardent fans because no-one else cares much; further excuses for them to remove any criticism whatsoever are absolutely not needed - David Gerard 14:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent change, David. "Controversial" is exactly what was always meant. WAS 4.250 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The template used on the talk pages of BLP (Template:Blp) says "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

I think it should be changed to be the text of the nutshell of this policy. It is currently locked down. WAS 4.250 05:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed it from 'negative' to 'controversial', referring to discussion here. I won't change the whole text to the nutshell as yet, pending more discussion - David Gerard 13:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we ought to be keeping discussion of this in one place. Template talk:Blp is where wording changes generally get discussed - perhaps that page's contents should be refactored to here and replaced with a redirect?

Anyway... I didn't like the policy as worded, because I think we should indeed be "neutral", which doesn't mean "neutered" or "sympathetic". However, isn't this policy supposed to be to reduce the likely of legal action against the Foundation? What exactly is the origin of this policy? If it's something Jimbo or the Foundation have mandated, I think this is a change too far. If it's a policy from our community, then I'd propose changing it even further and having it apply only to potentially libellous material. --kingboyk 14:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC) PS Please be careful when making changes to Template:Blp/BLPtext (check and double check spelling before hitting save), it's used on over 100,000 pages and every save adds a crazy number to the job queue.

The answer to "What exactly is the origin of this policy?" can be found here. WAS 4.250 17:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should distinguish things that are 'bad' in an article, like unsourced or poorly sourced material, from things that are unacceptable for WP, which is either vandalism or negative material about a living person. Bad things need to be fixed in the normal edit cycle, whereas unacceptable things need to fixed on sight with a complete immunity from 3RR or involved-admin rules. Therefore, I would specifically not use the term controversial where we really mean negative. Controversial material about Madonna, say, could be that she once ran the Boston Marathon and came in 10th (just inventing). That could be reverted if poorly sourced, let's say, but not with a 3RR exemption. OTOH, if the claim is that she ran the Marathon and cheated (e.g. took the bus), that would be negative and hence deletable-on-sight with 3RR exemption. In summary, I think we should be very careful about conflating negative and controversial, and the most critical rule in BLP is about negative material, not controversial. Crum375 14:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Crum375. The word negative is vital in this policy. Negative material about a living person is a very special kind of beast, and if this material is not sufficiently sourced (if there is any doubt about this whatsoever), then negative material must be removed immediately. Let's not dilute this simple message. The problem with using a word like "controversial" is that it asks the editor to predict the reaction to the content, because controversy is by definition all about the reaction the content causes. "Negative", on the other hand, is a relatively simple judgement that any editor can make based solely on the text. So let's keep this policy's special treatment of negative material, and if necessary, add an extra policy for the treatment of "otherwise controversial material". So, to summarise, first we ask "Is this material about a living person?" Yes. Then we ask "Is this material negative?" Yes. Then we ask "Is this material poorly referenced?" Yes. Then we delete it. If the material survives these tests, then we and only then should we proceed to ask "Is this material controversial?" The priority here must be clear... we are trying to stop people and their reputations from getting hurt by wild negative comment in Wikipedia. That's surely the primary objective of the BLP. THanks. Leeborkman 14:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid the balance is tipping too far. Surely the intent was never to sift out all unsourced negative material, while retaining the unqualified praise. Material about living people must be carefully sourced, but the policy is not fundamentally different from that on any other subject, except in the immediacy. On Byzantine history, we can leave in a cite request for a few weeks until someone gets to the library. If we say something about Madonna, the citations have to be there when the material is added. Not to say that there is anything negative to say about Madonna, who is a perfectly wonderful person by all accounts. Tom Harrison Talk 15:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"Negative" is an entirely POV criteria while "controversial" is an objective criteria. Further, what is positive about one person ("this person was number one at X, Y, and Z") can be negative about other people ("then so-and-so must be lying because he says he is number one at Z"). Is it negative to say the author of "Why I'm a famous whore" sleeps around? Is it negative to say Clinton is a liberal? Is is negative to say Coulter gets attention cause she's pretty? The issue is both privacy and what is controversial about a living person - yet unsourced properly; not what I or you would not want said of us (altho that's a good clue for what is controversial). "Negative" gets at the heart of the motivation for the policy while "controversial" gets at the heart of its implementation criteria. WAS 4.250 18:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a Foundation issue designed to protect WP from libel related law suits. If an article has an unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person, it could lead to the Foundation getting serious flak, and hence must be fixed instantly. If the article lavishes undeserved (i.e. poorly sourced) praise on someone, then sure that's not good but it can follow the normal civil WP process to get fixed. If we lump the two together, we dilute the handling of the critical issues with the non-critical. Crum375 18:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
We have a seperate libel policy. Let's not dilute the morality issues of dealing with living people (WP:BLP) with legal libel issues (Wikipedia:Libel). WAS 4.250 18:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
IMHO there are two levels of concern here, and we have a tendency to confound them. The highest level is concern about unsourced or poorly sourced negative material that could be libelous on its face, and is obvious lawsuit bait. That stuff should and must be removed immediately, from articles, user pages, and everywhere else. (It's like a rabid pit bull in your front porch--you MUST get rid of it NOW.)
The second level of concern, also high, but lower than the above, is for less obviously libelous material, hateful/harmful/mean-spirited material, etc. That stuff should be very carefully guarded against, not only for possible libel reasons, but for concerns about harming, pissing off, etc. living people, as well as concerns about Wikipedia becoming a non-encyclopedic repository for whatever negative cruft can be found and sourced. Though we don't want it in the encyclopedia, it doesn't necessarily have to be deleted as soon as it is noticed, and it might be OK to leave some talk about it on the discussion page. (It's like the saliva of a rabid pit bull who drooled on your front porch--clean it up, please, but you can take some time to find a mop and disinfectant.) Lou Sander 19:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Those who don't need a clue-bat know there are multiple spectrums of areas of concern with priorities ranging from shoot it on sight to maybe it might never get done but so what and these policies are merely pointers to them in a general handwaving way. We can't legislate clue. WAS 4.250 19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I support David's proposal to shift the language from "negative" to "controversial", mostly because in almost all actual cases I have seen in practice, these amount to exactly the same thing. In general, I think anything unsourced that anyone at all objects to (positive or negative) should be removed pending sourcing. (While noting, of course, that anyone who attempts any magic tricks by repeating my words as an incantation designed to override reasonable standards of what is or is not controversial will discover that in my infinite power, I have hidden a magic charm in this quote which will turn you into a toad. With warts. )--Jimbo Wales 23:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I support this change. Material could be unsourced and negative without being controversial, unless controversial is going to be defined as negative, in which case why make the change. "Professor Smith gained 50 lbs in weight during her tenure." There's nothing controversial about it, but it's negative and it's unsourced, so it needs to be removed immediately. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather have some real examples (with name changes or whatever) if going to the extent of a special rule - an extra axiom - is what the case demands. Quite possibly I am wrong; but, by crikey, the bends this puts in NPOV just seem too bad for the encyclopedia's qualit to stand. I've floated this on wikien-l as well, hoping for added ideas on the matter that don't require Jimbomancy - David Gerard 00:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
My worry is that "controversial" might open up greater opportunities for wikilawyers. I'll see if I can find real examples where it would have been an actual problem, but you're probably right in that, realistically, it's going to be unsourced controversial material that's the issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
No mere rule will stop the malicious for a second even as it hamstrings editors of good faith. Look, you already know the answer to your worry: if they act in a clearly stupid way and try to wikilawyer, the sensible people say "uh, no" and deal with them appropriately. Phrasing things overly didactically does not change anyone's actual behaviour or thinking, and it just gives wikilawyers a playground. You should have learnt this by now with the disaster that is the robotic overapplication of WP:RS. Now we get people complaining about their Wikipedia bios having press errors or lies that have been perpetuated, and which they can't get changed at all. Because newspapers are "reliable sources" and their own blog where they try to refute the newspaper lies are not "reliable sources." Thus meaning WP:RS has had the direct opposite effect it was intended to, all because it was written didactically to be applied robotically. Well done.
(And I can't really credit anyone claiming newspapers are "reliable sources" who's ever been written about by one.)
I'd say if the expressed concern here is "negative stuff means THE FOUNDATION WILL BE SUED TOMORROW!!" and Jimbo says "uh, no, controversial is better" then the imminent danger to the Foundation is not sufficient to panic the chairman of the board of the Foundation. Of course, Brad, who is an expert, might say "psst jimbo shut it!", but that's Bradmancy, which is an entirely different field of divination - David Gerard 00:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
And I just noticed it was Jimbo who actually wrote that. - David Gerard 00:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right, of course, that the malicious won't be stopped by a rule, and that wikilawyering can be stopped by other means, so I'm persuaded. Let's try "controversial" and see how it works out. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I am thinking of this change as a move from *just one type* of controversial material (the negative kind) to a more NPOV approach of *all kinds* of controversial material (negative, positive, or just highly questionable). "Professor Smith gained 50 lbs. in weight during her tenure" is precisely the sort of nonsense that should be shot on sight when people see it without references. The main thing I want to discourage is the overuse of citation request templates for stuff that should simply be removed.--Jimbo Wales 03:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it makes sense to cover any type of controversial material. The phrase I use when discussing the need for sources is "any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" needs a citation. But "controversial" is good too. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
My concern is with the method of dealing with either negative or positive material. I can see that we want to 'cut the red tape' and shoot down the negative material on sight, ignoring 3RR and civil discussion. Should we do the same for positive material? This could create mayhem as various users 'shoot on site', ignoring 3RR, all kinds of items, including positive ones, that they deem 'poorly sourced'. I am missing something? Crum375 12:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It still sounds like you're talking about clueless editors. No rule can endow a bad editor with editorial judgement. For POV-pushing, any excuse or none will do. It can't be worse than WP:RS has been already - David Gerard 13:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
My concern is with an aggressive (not necessarily 'clueless' per se) editor, that seeing Jimbo's latest message here will be able to trounce 3RR and civil discussion, and shoot-on-site anything s/he doesn't like, waving "it's poorly sourced" and "Jimbo said it's OK to ignore 3RR, even if it's not negative" flags. I can just see it happening. Crum375 13:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh... I came here to talk about a problem with the application of this policy and see that it had already been predicted in the conversation above. Specifically, on the David L. Cook page there has been a lovely little edit war where the fact that Cook lives in Charlotte, North Carolina has been repeatedly removed as 'controversial' and thus in violation of this policy. You see, 'controversial' can mean anything... all it takes is for someone to dispute it for any reason whatsoever and it becomes 'controversial' and they feel free to violate 3RR. To make matters even more bizarre... the person removing the change had accused the user adding it of being David Cook. Sooo.... why exactly would he sue Wikimedia over something he added to the page? As the situtation evolved, the user has claimed to work for Cook's management company and this seems to be born out by sleuthing performed by the user they are in dispute with... but they still refused to allow the 'controversial' text! So a reference backing up the claim was added... but it was from a page controlled by David Cook and apparently that page didn't have his home town listed a few days ago. So that dastardly David Cook went and created a reference and it must not be allowed because it isn't verifiable and David Cook could sue us for having this unverified controversial material about him in his article!
I understand the intended goal in expanding this from 'negative' to 'controversial'... but we need to consider not what the policy means, but what people will think/claim it means. Can we expand on the wording a little to explain that it only applies to things which would be controversial to the subject of the article... or one of their professional/personal rivals? 'Joe Average is the lowest scoring cricket player of all time' and 'Joe Average has outscored all other cricket players' would be 'controversial'. 'Joe Average lives in Duluth, Minnesota' should not be. Yes, it is possible that Joe doesn't really live in Duluth and it would be good to get a reference backing that up... but I hope that everyone agrees neither Joe nor anyone else is ever going to sue Wikimedia over it and thus it isn't something that needs to be shot on sight and 3RR ignored et cetera... or what this policy should then say is that ALL facts about living persons must be properly referenced... gender, height, age, citizenship, birth name... everything. --CBD 12:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You probably have a point here. How to phrase it so it's not a wikilawyer's playground, though? It's got to be a dessert wax AND a floor topping - David Gerard 12:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
How about, 'no it's not controversial; 3rr, 24 hours.' Tom Harrison Talk 13:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This illustrates what is supposed to happen. An unsourced item is challenged and because it is an item on a bio of a living person it is immediately provided with a reference. If the reference were useable but questionable then the item could be introduced with "According to [the source]" but this should not be done in this case as there is no evidence of a problem with this source being used for this item. This is how it is supposed to work. WAS 4.250 14:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
If this is what is "supposed" to happen then you are saying that ALL facts on living persons are controversial and should be subjected to unlimited reversions and blocks for re-inserting without 'valid' references. I agree this is how it is 'supposed to work' for controversial facts. I don't agree that the name of the city where someone lives is 'controversial'. --CBD 14:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
No. Not "ALL facts". Just ones that are CHALLENGED. You know. Questioned. As in "I think this fact should be sourced or removed" said by someone not trolling (and we should AGF). "unlimited reversions and blocks" is no part of this. If it is on a BLP and unsourced and questioned, then remove it or source it. Period. Where someone lives can be controversial for reasons that are not made public. Say a guy has a girl in one city and a girl in another city and pays rent for both. Now lawyers or the IRS get involved. If you have any creativity you can write the rest for yourself. It's not our place to decide that a detail about someone's life it important enough to have displayed for all the world to see yet unimportant enough to not bother with proper sourcing. If it is that trivial, it doesn't belong here in the first place. WAS 4.250 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
My point was that "just ones that are CHALLENGED" is effectively equivalent to "ALL"... because people can, will, and indeed already do challenge anything and everything for all sorts of reasons. Yes, scenarios can be constructed where the location someone lives could be 'damaging'... but in most cases it isn't... and certainly not when it is being taken off an online bio from the person themself. My understanding is that this policy was introduced to deal with information which on its face was potentially damaging to someone... if we want to expand that into the hypothetical realm of information which could be private and might theoretically cause some problem... then as you say a scenario can be imagined for ANY fact to fit that criteria. You say that unlimited reversions and blocks are "no part of this"... but the policy says otherwise. It states that this policy is here to deal with material which is so potentially damaging that users should ignore 3RR to revert it, admins should ignore usual strictures against blocking those they are in content disputes with, et cetera. To me that doesn't sound like it should apply to 'anything that anyone challenges for any reason'... and if it IS going to then we should just say that ALL facts on living persons have to be referenced to avoid uncertainty and/or abuse of the process. --CBD 10:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Challenges occur one at a time and thus are effectively not equivelent to saying "all". Think of it as a procedural definition that in fact will never encompass "all". Your understanding that "this policy was introduced to deal with information which on its face was potentially damaging to someone" is incorrect. It was introduced to deal with editors using existing wikipedia policy to treat living people as if they were no more important than some random building that had an article about it; with privacy at the top of the list of problems that this was causing (see User talk:WAS 4.250#Talk:WP:BLP for more details). Ignoring 3RR is about stuff that is agreed is inadequately sourced. When one guy says it is inadequately sourced and others disagree then ignoring 3RR is cause for a block. Saying "that ALL facts on living persons have to be referenced" more than we already do at the Verifiability policy and this policy is just stirring up trouble to no good end. Yes, we want everything in wikipedia to be referenced somewhere eventually, but editing needs to be a thoughtful process and throwing around universals ("all") is detrimental to a thoughtful process. WAS 4.250 18:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
In my view, deliberately leaving things ambiguous and relying on 'good judgement' to sort it out is far more "detrimental". It leads to disagreements which eventually come down to, 'my judgement (as an admin / arbitor / consensus judger / whatever) takes precedence over yours'... which in the best cases may lead to the right content, but still inevitably seems like bias to those on the receiving end. If any fact on a living person CAN absolutely require sources to remain displayed and 3RR may be ignored (if someone judges that it is 'agreed that sourcing is inadequate'... agreed by whom? Certainly not the person adding the info) then I think it would be far less disruptive and abusable to just say that all facts on living people require sources... because, under the scenario you describe, the moment someone 'challenges' them that becomes the case. If that goes too far then we should define the conditions under which sources are required for inclusion, 3RR goes out the window, and content disputes become blockable... because if we don't these subjective evaluations will be applied inconsistently amongst our 4,062,353 registered users (and countless anons) and it will generate a great deal of needless aggravation. --CBD 10:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(<----)Maybe.... but sometimes you need to assert clearly what do we mean as not acceptable material on BLPs: "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages". Simple, clear, unambiguous. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That says what needs to be said. (I don't see how "negative, positive, or just highly questionable" adds anything useful, but others do - so fine.) WAS 4.250 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict - to Tom) Do you think it is a good idea to set up a situation where the difference between 'User A gets blocked' and 'User B gets blocked' is a subjective interpretation of semantics on the word 'controversial'? I just see endless headaches in that future. I agree that finding the right phrasing is tricky, but urge that we try rather than saying, 'oh we will just stomp those who misapply it'. It is a given that people will take 'controversial' to mean 'anything that >I< want to challenge... even if it is just because I do not like the person adding it'. That's not some hypothetical problem, but a bedrock certainty of human nature... and a valid definition of the word 'controversial'. Spelling it out with less 'wiggle room' can only help avoid trouble. How about, '...text which seems defamatory or possibly biased (either positively or negatively)'? --CBD 14:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I do think it is fundamentally a matter of judgement. Maybe that can be said more or less explicitly, or maybe the judgement can be made by some formal mechanism instead of by you or me. I do not object to improving the wording, but spelling out too much invites wiki-lawyering. I too see endless headaches in the future. It strikes me that one way I might avoid them is to avoid anything dealing with living people. Excuse me if I don't reply promptly. Tom Harrison Talk 16:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You say "It is a given that people will take 'controversial' to mean 'anything that >I< want to challenge". That is what it means between editors that AGF with each other. But it is important to retain the word "controversial" rather than replace it with "anything anyone challenges" because AGF is not in spite of evidence so it can be appropriate to ask "what's controversial about the way we say X?" when the issue is not so much no source but the quality of the source or the wording of the claim. WAS 4.250 15:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Adding the explanation of what "controversial": means in this context, as per Jimbo's: "negative, positive, or just highly questionable", is very much needed. Without it, this policy will be misused. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with Jossi on this. FeloniousMonk 18:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
"Controversial" is the kind of nearly meaningless word that should be avoided if at all possible - Jimbo's explanation of exactly what we mean by "controversial" in this context is critical. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
WAS 4.250, Please refrain to refer in edit summaries to my edits as "jerking around". Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

While the example given above, "Professor Smith gained 50 lbs. in weight during her tenure", would be controversial even with refeences, as soon as I read it I thought of a possibly acceptable context.

Professor Smith spent 10 years as Assistant Professor of Ethics at the university's School of Nutrition. During her tenure Professor Smith gained 50 lbs. (22.7 kg) in weight. Professor Smith is 74 in (188 cm) tall. When she joined the school's faculty she weighed 130 lbs (58.9 kg) and could barely walk the stairs to her office without having to stop halfway to gain her strength. When she left to take a position as Full Professor of Ethics in the School of Law she weighed 180 lbs (81.6 kg) and took the stairs two or three at a time.

With the proper references, the professor's wight gain is interesting and relevant.

However, I also thought of this

Professor Smith spent 10 years as Assistant Professor of Ethics at the university's School of Nutrition. During his tenure Professor Smith gained 50 lbs. (22.7 kg) in weight. Professor Smith is 64 in (163 cm) tall. When he joined the school's faculty he weighed 105 lbs (47.6 kg). When he left to take a position as Full Professor of Ethics in the School of Law he weighed 155 lbs (70.3 kg).

It is still relevant. Would it be acceptable?

JimCubb 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems we need to find a word instead of negative or controversial, one that covers both negative and positive material, and which can't easily be misused by wikilawyers. Suggestions:
  • unsourced questionable material (should be removed etc)
  • unsourced material that is likely to be challenged
I'll try to think of others. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

User warnings?

I've found that I've had to warn some users that are violating this, in a similar vein as a vandal - IP address users that pop in and write really negative stuff on a BLP. I've proposed a new template for these at Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Proposal_for_a_new_variant_to_test2 and am interested in opinions on this, especially if this is a bad idea. Obviously, it would have to be made absolutely clear that it is used for clear cases of this, such as this recent rv I just did. What do you think? --plange 04:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would warn someone who makes edits like that. Just block them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Crackpot" & "other insulting language"

Jimbo Wales has written above:

  • I would personally say that yes, it is inappropriate to refer to anyone as a crackpot, and this word and all other insulting language should be avoided always. I say this, knowing that I have myself not always held to this high standard, and knowing that it is not always easy to do so. But we are better people when we can.--Jimbo Wales 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC) [15]

How would this apply to WP:V sources which are used in BLP here? Can they really be considered WP:RS?

Specifically, can a source (self-described as "opinion pieces") that is filled with this kind of language and conspiracy theories be used here:

  1. as a source in articles
  2. as an external link

It is a collection of frequently written email newsletters which are also archived on a website. The newsletters are the personal conjectures (written as fact) of one man about another man whom he hates, and he sends the mailings to thousands of people (including spamming some), and some of them then post his "opinion pieces" on Usenet, discussion groups, and numerous websites, since they also hate this man. Under deposition the man who writes the newsletters was forced to admit that his conjectures were "euphemisms" for what he believed to be true. They are very specific conjectures, including charges of criminal acts, for which he could produce no proof under deposition. This particular source is used many times here at Wikipedia, and because a number of editors also hate this man, they adamantly insist on using it as a source in articles and as an external link. -- Fyslee 18:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are taking the quote totally out of context. He is refering to words we use to describe living persons (including each other) on talk pages like this one. He is not talking about words used in articles based on verifiable sources. Articles must be as accurate as possible. We don't sugarcoat the verifiable truth. Period. We say it in clear plain nonemotional language. Some controversies require quoting others who use emotional language - those we put in proper NPOV encyclopedic context. (specifically he was responding to my immediately prior comment that included "Since I wrote the above, I looked into the situation a bit and discovered I do know of Steven Jones of 9/11 crackpot-theory fame after all. Should "crackpot" be deleted in the preceding sentence?") WAS 4.250 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. It is out of context, and that's why I started a new section, since I am using the quote as a springboard for another subject (IOW another context) - the subject of verifiable sources (an email newsletter written by one man -- it's verifiable) that consist of speculation, lies, and libel. Why are they allowed at present? -- Fyslee 19:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:V and WP:RS are the places that get into detail on sources, not here. But, the short answer is that wikipedia covers the real world and "speculation, lies, and libel" are as much a part of the real word as war and murder and other bad things. WAS 4.250 20:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here, but the shift of context is so great, that I am struggling to figure out how. First, we, as Wikipedians, ought to comport ourselves with the highest standards of love and respect for the dignity of others, particularly for the subjects of our articles, even if we find them somehow distasteful. We are encyclopedists, but more, we are wikipedians, and to me that means something about how we should interact with others. We are not editorialists, we are not bloggers. If we privately judge someone to be a crackpot, fine, we make that judgment to ourselves, and then we write with love in a way that preserves their dignity. We say things like "Your views are not generally accepted by mainstream science" or "We are unable to publish your original research, please try to get it published in a peer reviewed academic journal."
The separate question you seem to be asking about is whether "crackpot" websites and conspiracy theories be used as sources for articles. Well, obviously, no. My point is that there is no reason for us to be insulting about it. Our choice is not between "be insulting" versus "accept what they say". The right answer is: be kind, but be firmly in possession of our rational faculties, and make serious editorial judgments in good faith to the best of our abilities.--Jimbo Wales 23:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"we, as Wikipedians, ought to comport ourselves with the highest standards of love and respect for the dignity of others, particularly for the subjects of our articles, even if we find them somehow distasteful. We are encyclopedists, but more, we are wikipedians, and to me that means something about how we should interact with others." Reading your response reminds me why this project is special and worth the aggravation to make things better. FloNight 23:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, and it's a timely and much-needed reminder. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Misspellings of my user name notwithstanding, of course. :) - Crockspot 20:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm

The comments made on this page over the last 36 hours or so have convinced me of only one thing. Sarcasm is an extremely dangerous form of communication in electronic media. I believe that all participants in this discussion share a common goal - creating the best possible open-source encyclopedia. The use of sarcasm and metaphor instead of plain speech is creating confusion and discord where none previously existed. May I ask everyone avoid all use of sarcasm on this page? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the use of sarcasm should be banned from all WP spaces as un-civil, including edit summaries, except in article space where it is relevant and duly quoted from some reliable source. Crum375 13:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree 100%. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Me, too. Lou Sander 04:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added it to WP:CIVIL. Crum375 12:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You can follow the thread here. Crum375 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully we already have a rule guideline against stupidity, which has abolished all stupidity on Wikipedia and therefore removed any motivation editors may have to resort to sarcasm - David Gerard 12:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO, this version is reasonable. However, edit warring never helped. The Civility talk page is not really getting to the point that sarcasm is never uncivil, just slowly figuring out what the terms of reference for when it is uncivil are. Unless I am interpreting things wrong. Ansell 12:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD makes NYT!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/weekinreview/08word.html - BTW, this is why public-facing levels of civility are needed on AFDs. They're not just internal communications. It's not mentioned in this article, but, doing press, I get people upset that Wikipedia has called them a "vanity author" when their article was marked as "vanity" and they had no hand in it, and asking who to sue. Explaining it's a jargon term only goes so far. (And I thought the word "vanity" was supposed to have been expunged from AFD vocabulary for this reason anyway.) To be sure, almost all such articles marked for deletion on AFD are just that ... but the term causes us a hell of a lot of trouble. If those who participate in living bio AFDs could please help keep such discussions at public-facing levels of civility, it would be most helpful to all - David Gerard 07:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This falls under WP:BITE, too. — Werdna talk criticism 07:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Big time - David Gerard 09:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Have modifications been made to the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators or to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion to ensure we use a less accusatory or better terminology?--MONGO 10:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I just made an edit to the latter, let's see if it lasts. Feel free to rephrase less clunkily - David Gerard 11:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps someone would like to be bold and replace the word "vanity" in Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles and Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. The title of the latter caused a problem at Wikipedia:No original research resulting in the following : "See also Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines|guidelines on conflict of interest]].". (which is not the best possible wording due to this guideline: Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest.) WAS 4.250 17:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added a note to both of those, and I've also added one to WP:CSD to avoid the word in deletion summaries too. Could others please keep an eye on those? - David Gerard 10:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Relatives of famous people who fail WP:BIO on their own.

Sometimes the relatives (usually children) of famous people get into the press briefly, usually because of some embarrassing incident. In a typical case, the incident is covered widely in the press, so there is no issue of verifiability, but the incident may be the only reliable, verifiable information of sufficient importance to bother writing about. Since WP:BIO is a guideline, not policy, it can validly be overridden (or interpreted) by consensus, and we can validly have a biography of a person whose exploits would be completely non-notable if he or she were not a relative of a genuinely famous person.

My concern is, what is the proper application of our NPOV policy to this type of case? Unlike the typical biographical entry, the negative incident is not likely to be balanced by other information, creating a negative impression that may well not be fair. The solutions I can think of are:

  1. Delete the biography. This requires consensus on AFD.
  2. Merge the article into the famous person's biography, where it will have context and not be expected to be a complete biography. This requires consensus, but a less formal one than AFD.
  3. Flesh out the article with self-published information from the person's My Space account (or whatever).
  4. Commit original research to include what positive information one can find from other primary or doubtful sources.

What is the proper way to handle this? I avoid naming any specific article because I am interested in the general approach, and whether there should be something in the policy about this type of case. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In every example I can think of, the preferred solution has been option 2 above - merge the verifiable content into the famous person's biography and let the experts watching that page keep it in balance. Failing that, it should be deleted. Expanding the page by adding unverifiable content or original research just makes a bad article worse. Rossami (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I would be OK with #2 if there is not enough verifiable content for a decent stand-alone article. However, a seperate article for this relative makes sense if their more famous relative's page is already too long. There is also nothing wrong with #3 if it is done sensibly (I.e. sourced as self=promoted, no reasonable doubt as to whot eh My Space article is, etc.). Number 1 (deletion) is a bad choice. Some people are famous for negative things, that is not our fault. As to number 4, using doubtful sources is not recommended for any article, let alone a BLP. Johntex\talk 00:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a policy and it covers this; rather than WP:BIO which is only a guideline. This policy states:
"Non-public figures"
"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source. (see above)."
"In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." WAS 4.250 06:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Another option which is sometimes viable is to have a '<Name> family' article linked from the most famous member(s) and redirected to from the names of individual members. This is especially the case if many members of the family have been in the news or are otherwise widely known, but have not truly done anything which would be 'notable' except for their relation to one or more famous people. --CBD 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Where's option 5? What's wrong with having the stub? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, there is an option zero (or five) if you prefer -- just leave it as a stub (or very short article) that only talks about the embarrassing episode and nothing else. If it is consensus that this is fair, there is no issue. I am thinking about the "do no harm" aspect quoted by WAS, and whether this has any impact on a case where the only notable thing about the person is negative, and the only positive things are non-notable. Is there a point at which it becomes non-current, or should a 30-year-old have a bio that contains only her arrest for indecent exposure during Mardi Gras at the age of 20? Robert A.West (Talk) 15:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Option 5 - leave it as a stub, is completely acceptable. There are people who are known only for one bad act. If that is the case, then that is all the article needs to include, if that is all that is verifiable. As to time limits, there is no reason to decide that in advance. In 30 years, editors can decide if the article is still useful to anyone. Perhaps Mardi Gras is no longer celebrated in 2036 and readers of that time period are fascinated with information about the event, maybe they could care less. Let them make the decision. Johntex\talk 15:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Living people who only have one thing that unbiased reliable secondary sources can be found for; almost without exception should not have an article about them. If the event is important, then the event can have an article about it. The key to the living people policy that that people are to be treated as people, not mere objects we assemble a data base on. Articles about them can affect their lives. If an article on a living person can not be both verifiable and balanced then whether they are a public person or a private person becomes a critical criteria - if private (example - they are some nobody who got arrested) then ax the article; while if public (example - they have gone out of their way to seek publicity) then keep the article. WAS 4.250 16:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It depends on the case, of course, but in general I disagree. Billy Carter is only famous for being the brother of a famous politician and for being a "colorful character" (some might say he is "a screw-up"). Our article on him lists nothing positive about him except that he was in the Marines, if you count that. He simply hasn't done anything great in his life to bother writing about. It's not our fault that is the way his life has turned out. To delete his article or to merge it into Billy Carter would be a big mistake. He is famous enough to have his own article, and that article correctly spends its time on what he is famous for. Johntex\talk 17:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I just read your post again and I see you are placing a big emphasis on it being one thing. I think it depends on what the "one thing" is. To me, Billy is notable only for one incident, but if you read his article there are a couple of things there, so maybe he does not fit your defintion. Again, it is hard to say for certain without a concrete example. If the "one" thing they did is to stage a school massacre, then of course that is notable. As to your suggestion of writing about the event rather than the person, I don't think it matters. Our entire policy on this is misguided. Libel against Bill Gates is libel whether it is in Bill Gates or Microsoft or Fleshlight. If Joe Shmoe is famous for participating in one famous event, it really doesn't matter if the name of the article is Joe Schmoe or famous event. We have to avoid libel in either case, which is why our focus purely on biographies is only a very small part of what needs to be done. Johntex\talk 17:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
One more thought: some police departments make a point of publishing the names of people who have committed certain crimes, and newspapers publish them. Although I'm not suggesting that we need an article on each of these people, I don't see why there would be a legal liability to us if there is no problem for the newspaper. Again, I don't think we should rush to create such articles, but I don't see them as a legal problem, either. Johntex\talk 17:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The right to privacy of nonpublic persons is guaranteed by Florida state law, Wikipedia policy, the sense of morality by most wikipedians, and the desire to shield family members by famous wikipedians. Think "privacy and morality" in addition to "libel and law". WAS 4.250 19:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
If people would stop thinking about libel law entirely (an enormously complex area that only specialists understand), and would concentrate only on being decent, there'd be a lot less confusion; and by being decent we'd find ourselves on the safe side of any defamation legislation anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It would also be helpful to concentrate on posting only material that is suitable to an encyclopedia (perhaps using other encyclopedias as a guide). Lou Sander 20:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said "Although I'm not suggesting that we need an article on each of these people,.." however, people are claiming it is a lible problem, hence the second part of my statement "...I don't see why there would be a legal liability to us if there is no problem for the newspaper." Speaking from a legal standpoint, anything a newspaper in Florida can do, we should be able to do, I would expect. As to whether it is moral or not, that is clearly a matter of opinion. There are some that would hold up the news-institutions as having high standards of moral conduct. Johntex\talk 15:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, never mentioned libel. I was discussing facts that are widely published and undoubtedly true. The question is one of fairness, both to our readers and to the subject of the biography. It seems to me that a biographical main article should be, or be able to be made, reasonably comprehensive. Even a biography of Gary Ridgway should include more than just the murders, although clearly that is the major point of interest, and sources exist to do that. In the case of the drug-addict daughter of a politician, that may be impossible using reliable sources. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I suppose that the policy does not need clarification here. In the case I am thinking about, the proposal to merge has resulted in accusations of bad faith by some editors who see merging as equivalent to deletion, or preparatory to a plan to surreptitiously delete it, and therefore who see it as politically motivated a fortiori. This is going to be a tough sell. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

An editor keeps trying to cast doubt on whether he has a BSc in Physics by constantly changing the wording so it reads "He states he has a degree from Columbia University in Physics" - am I right in thinking this is a blatant violation? Adam Cuerden talk 12:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The editor in question should probably give evidence it is in doubt - David Gerard 12:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with David. Johntex\talk 15:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
If evidence is not provided concerning doubt, could the phrasing "He states he has a degree.. " be considered in violation? --Iantresman 10:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of operating companies

What thoughts are there, or have been, about a similar criteria to this page for the other major libel target on Wikipedia, operating companies, specifically criticisms against them. Ansell 01:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent question. Under US law, corporations have many of the same rights as individual citizens. I don't know how this plays out with respect to libel specifically. However, I do know that libel about Bill Gates is libel whether it occurs at Bill Gates or Microsoft or Xfm Manchester or at Housewife Bangers. The title and supposed main subject of the article make no difference as far as the liability is concerned. For that reason, I think our focus on living persons is too narrow to be anything more than a very incomplete fix for the problem. Johntex\talk 01:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
If you focus on companies/corporations, then you'd have to include organizations, institutions, religions, movements, political parties etc., which of course are broader categories than than just 'companies', which would then encompass a large part of Wikipedia article space. I think our basic neutrality and attribution rules should cover organizations and such. Crum375 01:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Johntex: Would you initially think that this page should be expanded, or that a different page for companies be created to reflect their different needs. Should everything be consolidated to Wikipedia:Libel. They seem to be the three initial questions to me. Ansell 01:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Crum375: The question I am trying to ask is more whether we should have a special response for organisations, as we do for people. Afterall, if they have the same legal rights, then we can be sued in the same way. Ansell 01:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that there are so many possible types of organizations, as I mentioned above, that it would include a high percentage of our articles. I think our strict neutrality and attribution rules are designed specifically to be deal with organizations. I doubt a false claim about the derivation of Pi would result in a law suit or even a nasty letter to the Foundation (well, you never know), but obviously there are many types of organizations, not just corporations, and of course world wide, who could be offended and threaten legal action. The way I see it, we make an extra effort for living persons, everything else gets our normal high caliber strict set of sourcing and neturality rules. Crum375 01:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
There has been some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles about ongoing enterprises. Tom Harrison Talk 02:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
In answer to the question from Ansell - my personal opinion (based upon an incomplete knowledge of all possible facts, as usual) is that this policy does little to prevent libel. Clearly, higher powers at Wikimedia (including at least one lawyer, Brad Patrick) feel the policy is helpful, so I will assume they know something I don't. For example, it may be a legal defense to at least show that "we tried something". As I said, though, since I can libel Bill Gates at an article that has nothing whatsoever to do with Bill Gates, this policy is very incomplete, at best. I think more emphasis on Wikipedia:Libel would potentially be a good idea to help us address all our other articles that are not biographies of living people, but where libel could occur due to a malacious editor. (Hint, that's every single article because they are all at risk as long as anyone can edit them). Johntex\talk 15:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe this expansion would be unnecessary. Companies, corporations and other organizations are by definition public persons. They do not have the same implicit right to an expectation of privacy that a natural person has. Organizations expect to get discussed and factor publicity (positive and negative) into their decisions in ways that few humans would do. While it is possible to libel a company and in theory the standards are the same, in practice there is a much higher threshold. You can say some pretty awful things about Wal-Mart and not get in legal trouble. Rossami (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted this at the other proposed policy page, and will mention it here as well for consideration. If negative press about Megacorp, LLC is uncovered by a reliable source, it would be negligient to not report on it at least in passing. For example, a very small incident could be handled safely by a line or two, with a link or two to RS detailed it more fully. I simply mean that this proposed policy should not be used to shield organizations or corporations from "bad press" simply because Google or other SE results will have disproportionate weight via Wikipedia being what it is. The goal is not to assist in spin control or minimizing negative associations for the subject of an article, but to be the sum total of human knowledge as Jimbo has said. And, of course, companies are not and never will be people to have hurt 'feelings'. The legal comes first, but that should be the only concern when speaking in terms of organizations and corporations. Whether or not Megacorp (or whomever) is happy with a site with a future Pagerank of "1" has links to things they want to eventually fade from public view is irrelevant in the scheme of what we do. · XP · 16:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Deadlinks and BLPs

BLP states that we should "remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material" from biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. So my questions are:

  • do fixed dead links equal a poor source?
  • If one comes across controversial material cited with a deadlink, should one remove the material or simply 'fix' the link by dating when the website was originally retrieved (if a live substitute link can't be found)

I would really appreciate community input on this, since it affects a lot of pages and isn't explicitly stated in BLP. Geedubber 22:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you believe it is true but sourced by a dead link then do not delete it but instead act otherwise:ignore it, add a fact template, or move it to talk. If you have reason to disbelieve it and can not verify it because it is a dead link or any other sensible reason then delete it if it also seems controversial to you.. WAS 4.250 00:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That is why the {{web cite}} template has a "retrieved" parameter. Some links go dead after a time, but if you have the date of retrieval, readers can attempt to use the WayBack machine at http://www.archive.org/ to verify it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable information from subject

Including information from the subject is listed as always OK. Now, it's certainly always OK to note that the subject _said_ something. But some subjects are well-known to be inveterate liars. The policy should note that when there is geniune argument about something, information from a subject which does not have legitimate third-party verification should _not_ be presented as fact. This is a serious defect in the policy -- one which particularly affects bios of politicians. 24.59.105.229 12:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy says you can only use information from the subject if "it is not contentious". Wouldn't that address your concern? Crum375 14:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Youtube

I need to know whether Youtube is reliable source for critical content in a BLP, and how to cite it. Do we have a page, guideline, description anywhere? I'm tryng to clean up candidate articles for elections, and Youtube is cited all over the place as a source for critical commentary on candidate BLPs. I don't know whether to delete, require a print source, and how to cite. Thanks, Sandy 21:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How is a direct video of someone saying something not a reliable source, unless there are questions about video manipulation? If you have a video of someone saying something, does it matter who the host of the file is?--Francisx 21:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I can see at least two possible objections, in principle. First it could be, as you say, manipulated. And second, it would be at best a primary source, which is frowned upon in many situations, as you need someone else, a reliable and neutral source, to actually interpret and analyze what was said and put it in context - if a WP editor does it, it could be viewed as WP:OR. Crum375 21:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a Youtube archive of a news report, ala CNN? · XP · 21:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
YouTube cannot be a reliable source for anything, critical or not. (a) it is open to abuse; (b) it can carry copyvios (and it does; (c) the original source is seldom included, etc, etc, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Just for my own edification, if someone uploads a captured MSNBC video/TV report, for example, to Youtube or Google, why is the MSNBC report not reliable? As many news reports thus may never see "print" in any form, that may be the only way to verify them or their content. · XP · 22:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
If the video was uploaded by MSNBC, that would not be a problem (and actually that video may be avalable from msnbc.com anyway). But if the video was uploaded by Joe Blow, there is no way we can assert the authenticity of that video, neither the rights of Joe to post a copy of the video report. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Depends on the actual item. A copyvio can not be cited as a reliable source. A video uploaded by who knows whom can not be cited as a reliable source. However, note that certain videos are delivered by NBC and CBS themselves directly to YouTube [16] [17] - those, I suspect, should be considered reliable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I can say from personal experience that it is very easy to edit a video clip to take out words, etc. From what I've seen in various BLP's, I wouldn't want to use any source that's less reliable than a regularly-published non-tabloid newspaper. That means NOT using blogs, websites like Media Matters or National Review Online, etc. Lou Sander 22:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I would go further, and assert that a YouTube video is not a reliable source for any articles, not only BLPs. Video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources, or convenience inks, only if their authenticity can be confirmed and are not violating someone else's copyright. And even that, with great caution. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, Jossi, I've gotten no support from wiki admins after days of abuse for enforcing hard-print BLP violations on election candidate articles, and I'm not willing to take this on alone. Shall I revert critical comments on BLPs sourced to Youtube, and will I have support if it becomes a 3RR issue? Sandy 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not Jossi, but my opinion is that Youtube would be acceptable as a reference in some very limited circumstances. E.g. no copy-vio, primary only (no WP-level interpretation), clear sourcing (e.g. uploaded by CNN) so no chance for someone to manipulate. As Jossi said I would be extra cautious - if it's at all controversial, get the official transcript from CNN or whatever. Crum375 01:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've never looked a Youtube clip, and I don't relish the prospect. (I don't watch TV: I sure don't want to watch TV on a computer screen.) So, how will I (or anyone) know, when watching one of these clips, if they are legit, if they have no copy-vio, etc? How do I know if they're doctored? And I have to watch a full clip to verify one sentence? arrrrgh. If it's official enough for a BLP, there should be a transcript: why don't we just tell editors to source the transcript, so people don't have to watch TV on their computers to check sources? What will tell me on one of these clips if it's legit and there's no copyvio? Sandy 01:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) My own opinion is that in BLP we exclude anything that cannot be proven acceptable by the inserting editor. So I believe the burden of proof of the issues you mentioned falls on the inserting editor's shoulders. If it's non-contentious then I don't think you need that much care (just normal level), but as soon as there is any kind of controversy then it goes out until proven acceptable IMO. Crum375 01:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to repeat what I've said elsewhere about this, Youtube should not be used as a source, except in the sense that there might be clips of documentaries or other films that counted as reliable sources. But in cases like that, the source is the documentary, not Youtube, and providing a Youtube link would only be done as a matter of courtesy to the reader. It would be like finding a blog that hosted a copy of a NYT article that was no longer available on the NYT site. So long as we had no reason to believe the article might have been tampered with, it's fine to link to the blog. But the source is the NYT, not the blog, and the full citation should be for the NYT article.
If anyone objects, on BLP, copyright, or on any other grounds, just remove the link to Youtube, but the citation to the film Youtube was showing should stay (not all source material has to be online), and should stand or fall as a reliable source on its own merits. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Precisely correct. To say it another way, "Youtube" is no more a good source than "the internet" or "the library" but it can contain stuff that is. WAS 4.250 13:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Opinion on criticism sections

What is the general concensus on dealing with well-sourced criticism of a BLP? Should it go in a Criticisms section or should it be weaved into the general prose/timeline of the article? I thought I saw mention somewhere that a separate section should be avoided as it could be a troll magnet, but now can't find it. Thoughts? --plange 15:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is better to weave it into the article. Jimbo has a quote on this somewhere. But that's a matter of good writing more than anything else. In the process of creating an article, placeholder subsections are often useful for relevant sourced claims until they can be woven in. Criticism sections should be viewed as temporary placeholders. WAS 4.250 15:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Plange, you can find Jimbo's quote here. Sandy 16:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this is the actual link. Crum375 16:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Asymmetry

I fully understand the concerns with libel, but I have to say: the way this is being applied, it seems like some figures who are "controversial" at best are getting a free ride. The way this is being interpreted, it seems that positive remarks about them can be sourced to their own web site, or a local paper that probably printed their press release intact, etc., but negatives need to come from major mainstream media, and neutral media at that.

For an example, of what I'm talking about: take a look at the Fred Newman article. People are objecting to citing Chip Berlet's writing on Newman on the theory that Berlet is non-neutral and that his book was published by the organization he works for (which people are characterizing, I think misleadingly, as "self-published"). But some of the favorable material on Newman has awfully thin citation. - Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the assymetry is that there is no legal liability for producing positive information. WP:BLP was created to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits. Ramsquire 00:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
But clearly this is not being applied only to potentially libelous material. It is being applied much more stringently than that. - Jmabel | Talk 01:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the original reason for creating BLP, the proper reason for BLP is that saying negative things about living people has a potentially catastrophic effect on those people, and so must only be done with great cause and extreme care. Wikipedia does not exist as some pure, ethereal document, floating alone in space - this is a real document with real effects on real people in the real world. It is simple human courtesy to completely reject negative comment until it can be shown to meet all of the relevant standards for notability, verification, etc. Continually raising the original motivations for creating the BLP policy (whatever those motivations might have been) just muddies the waters. This is a simple ethical principle. Forget the legalities. Behave ethically. Everyone gains. Leeborkman 01:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not know of any other encyclopedia that prints negative material about the people it covers, except in the gentlest and most roundabout way. Lou Sander 01:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For living person claims - If it is unsourced and controversial - positive or negative - then delete it. That's policy. WAS 4.250 02:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Similarly... For living person claims - If it is unsourced and negative - controversial or non-controversial - then delete it. That's policy too (I hope). Don't put it back until it has passed the standards of notability and verification (which should be easy if the statement is not controversial). Leeborkman 02:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Even forget about the legal consequences. What's the right thing to to? Real damage to reputations and lives can occur for inaccurate or unnecessarily harsh criticism. Time is on Wikipedia's side. There is no publishing deadline. If an editor doesn't get in that last little negative or controversial tidbit by 5 pm, no harm is done. Conversely, if he rushes and get's it wrong, huge harm can be done for no apparent reason. Even journalists can point to deadlines as excuses for getting it wrong. Wikipedians have no excuse. Erroring on the side of "thin" is always better than erroring on the side of "thick." So what if the positive comments outweigh the negative for a time? The opposite is infinitely worse. --Tbeatty 06:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

It seems to me that most of the issues that arise in biographies of living persons come from people who dislike the subject of the article wanting to include any negative information they can find into the article without a regard for sourcing. To counteract this, maybe Wiki can create a checklist guideline an editor has to go through before adding an edit to a biography of a living person. For example, things an editor should consider before an edit is:

  • their opinion of the subject;
  • is the edit negative;
  • is it sourced;
  • is it from a source that complies with WP:RS;
  • is the edit being presented in a neutral tone
  • is the edit relevant (meaning is it something that persons decades in the future will care about or is it simply the latest tabloid gossip).

I'm sure there are more guidelines that can be added but perhaps if editors thought more about what they are doing, there would be a decrease in the amount of libel that gets posted at Wiki.

Ramsquire 00:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of privacy issue is not mentioned adequately

There is a reference to "false light" under "Use of categories," and this refers to a Wikipedia article, Invasion of Privacy. But from the footnote at the bottom of that article, which leads to a long essay posted on the website of the Florida bar, it is clear that "false light" is but a tiny part of the invasion of privacy issue. This is important because Florida is the Wikimedia Foundation's declared and preferred jurisdiction. There needs to be an entire section on the sort of statements -- even if they are true statements -- that might be actionable under Florida's laws. Moreover, the statute of limitations for libel in Florida is two years, but for invasion of privacy, due to a quirk where the legislature forgot to include it on a list under a new law, is four years. That's what an appeals court in Florida said about the statute of limitations for invasion of privacy. Maybe the legislature will fix this soon, but maybe not. --Daniel Brandt 216.60.71.219 04:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also a reference to "public disclosure" under the Wikipedia article on invasion of privacy. Even if somebody posts something true on Wikipedia, if it's in reference to a non-notable person, especially one who asks to be removed, it could be a serious problem. 69.140.173.15 18:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of minors

Does Wikipedia have a policy that specifically addresses the special privacy concerns of minors? For instance, a policy that states that articles on children under, say, 12 can be speedily deleted unless the subject is demonstrably voluntarily in the public eye (an actor, for instance), a missing person, etc.? --Charlene.fic 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good point, but it may need to be expanded. Imagine a scenario of a live 15 year old kidnapping/rape victim, who was in the media spotlight. Do we really want an article for that person with all the details? You would think that a young person like that deserves to at least get to adulthood in relative privacy. How would we handle that case? Crum375 19:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
A related issue is listing the current schools of minors, either in their own biographies or in the articles about the schools. Between child actors and "l'il" rappers we have a number of articles about notable minors. Even if the inforamtion has already been published elsewhere and is verifable, I think it is too much information. Any thoughts? -Will Beback 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal liability for true statements (privacy concerns)

"the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed that publishing embarrassing facts about a private citizen (even if the statements of fact are completely true) [...] constitutes an actionable invasion of the right of privacy [using the words] the publicizing of one’s private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion into one’s private activities, in such manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities."[18] WAS 4.250 08:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The specific quotation above appears to come from a decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court. (The error was made by the authors of the article cited, not be WAS 4.250.) This is a complicated area of the law, and the rules differ widely from one country to another or even one state to another. My personal opinion, however, is that as a matter of Wikipedia policy, we have no reason to be coming anywhere close to the line in this area. Newyorkbrad 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

James Lloyd (rapist)

Lol. Obvious violation. - Jack (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Cool, so I see it was speedily deleted under criteria G10, but what is to do with all these hundreds of articles: Category:Rapists? Should all the living ones really all be deleted? - Jack (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • My comment when I tagged the article as a possible {{db-attack}} hinged on the specific facts as they were presented on the page. Specifically, I noted that 1) this was a mere news story, not an encyclopedia article and 2) the page discussed an accusation, not a conviction. Had the article discussed someone who was both very prominent and who had already been convicted, the decision might have been different. Certainly all the articles in that category should be carefully reviewed in light of this new policy but the actual decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. Rossami (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Policy doesn't call for them to be deleted. WP:BLP is about removing poorly sourced or unsourced material. If we have verifiable information from a reliable source stating that they were criminally convicted of rape (which is the criteria for Category:Rapists) then it doesn't fall under [[WP:BLP]. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Help needed at the J. Phillipe Rushton aricle

2 editors named Ramdrake and JereKrischel dominate this article and have removed all encyclopedic content from this article and have used selective quotes to try to portray a qualified and objective academic as an incompetent racist. This type of libel goes against wikipedia's rules for biographies on living persons. Also, people researching Rushton do so to learn about the theories for which he is best known, not to read a list of selectively chosen quotes trashing the man. I find this article very biased, one sided, boring, and libelous. Now that the article is semi-protected against new users like me, I encourage anyone concerned with the rules of living persons articles to revert back to my version of the article. 205.211.50.10 02:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the top of this page before posting here about a specific article. Thank you. Crum375 02:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, thanks 205.211.52.10 02:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This policy potentially voids Wikipedia's 47 USC 230(c)(1) protection

As an attorney, I have to wonder if Wikipedia has any legal counsel and, if so, if that counsel has reviewed this new "Biographies of living persons" policy for its legal soundness or lack thereof. As a longtime Wikipedia user and contributor, I worry that this policy has drastically increased Wikipedia's exposure to liability. In an attempt to improve, Wikipedia may have opened a door to its own destruction.

In a simplified explanation, federal law -- specifically 47 USC 230(c)(1) -- protects a system such as Wikipedia against liability for libel/defamation. When an online service provider cannot control the content before it is published, federal law thus protects it against defamation claims because it is legally not considered a publisher. With this new "Biographies of living persons" policy, however, Wikipedia has assumed the role of editor and thus potentially voids its 47 USC 230(c)(1) protection. In an attempt to shield itself against litigation, Wikipedia may have significantly increased its legal liability. I would encourage interested parties to read the following for a clearer picture of how 47 USC 230(c)(1) protections can be voided: Gentry v. eBay, Inc. 99 Cal.App.4th 816 (2002); Barrett v. Rosenthal 114 Cal.App.4th 1379 (2004) (and the appeal, when it's published); Carafano v. Metrosplash.com[19].

Please note that the various sources discussed at Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, such as Ken S. Myers's excellent analysis, were written/published before this new biography policy was instituted.

All of this is not to say that incorrect or defamatory material shouldn't be removed from articles. It's Wikipedia's self-insinuation as editor that worries me. By adopting a special policy for biographies of living persons with a higher standard of care, and thus becoming more systematically active in editing, Wikipedia stands on shaky ground, in my opinion. 207.69.138.10 17:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I too am an attorney, though not a specialist in IP or defamation law, and certainly not Wikipedia's lawyer. My reaction is that I think it is very highly unlikely a court would hold that voluntarily aspiring to higher standards for our content should reduce the site's legal protections, but I will read with interest the cases you cite.
Wikipedia does have legal counsel, User:Brad Patrick, and you certainly should feel free to draw your concerns to his attention, either via his user talk page here or privately. Newyorkbrad 18:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Brad, the key issue is this: does the more hands-on policy make Wiki a "publisher" and therefore void the 47 USC 230(c)(1) protections? A number of attorneys I know, who specialize in cyberlaw, feel that a site needs to be as "hands off" as possible in order to maintain 47 USC 230(c)(1) protections. The new biographies policy is more hands-on. The million-dollar question, therefore, is whether that moves Wiki into the domain of publisher and thus void its 47 USC 230(c)(1) protections. This issue has yet to be tested. Rosenthal, in part, directly addresses this issue, but has yet to be decided and, since it's in a state court, it's not binding on other courts, which will only further muddy the waters. I think it would be wiser for Wiki to maintain the same standard for bios as everything else and not draw additional attention to this issue. That's only waving a red flag for some pissed-off person who has a biography on here to test the issue. That would be very expensive.207.69.137.200 00:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a personal opinion, which is that the answer is generally no with at most narrow exceptions. Precisely because of concerns you raise, I don't think a further legal discussion here would be appropriate, though I will be glad to share my views privately with the Office if they should happen to ask me. (Please also note that although my username includes "Brad", I am by no means Brad Patrick; the presence of two lawyer Brads is a pure coincidence, and I can only plead that I was here first. :) ) Newyorkbrad 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There is related discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#You are legally responsible for your edits. The Foundation's counsel apparently disavows any responsibility for something an editor inserts. The Living People Patrol is a group that was put together voluntarily to help enforce the BLP policy. As a member of that group, I can tell you that we are not, nor are we seen as, an official group with any authority other than being able to argue well about a policy we are very familiar with. Crockspot 19:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Crocks, disavowing liability is no protection. As I noted to Brad above, the issue turns on whether the more hands-on, more focused policy moves Wiki into the domain of publisher, thus voiding its 47 USC 230(c)(1) protections. The volunteerism of the participants is irrelevant. In the Rosenthal case, no one was being paid.207.69.137.200 00:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer. I am a layman. The anonymous user who started this section has proposed a legal hypothesis stating that an online provider who publishes a policy about permissible content in biographies can be considered to have "control" over said content before it is published and therefore assumes the role of an editor. Do I have that right?
Frankly, I don't see the logic. First, Wikipedia can never control content before it's published because of the nature of Wikipedia's design. Publication of what I'm writing now, for example, is instant the moment I hit the "Save page" button, and Wikipedia has zero control whatsoever over what I wrote prior to that event.
Second, the editors of bio articles on Wikipedia are all volunteers, and many of them are happy to have a guide for reference. That's the function this policy serves, to say "if you see something wrong according to these rules, then revert it." I am simply not seeing how this policy weakens Wikipedia's legal protection.
I do agree that Wikipedia has become too policy and procedure oriented, however. I suspect, though, that this is a response to growth, a way to manage a much larger population of contributors (and vandals, and spammers, etc.) than ever before. -Amatulic 20:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Amatulic, here is where you need to read the caselaw. The important legal distinction is whether Wikipedia moves from provider to publisher with this new policy. "Publisher" is an important legal distinction in defamation law. If a court deems it has become a publisher, then the 47 USC 230(c)(1) protections are voided. This is an issue that has yet to be tested by a trial court. What may seem logical to you, as a layperson, doesn't mean that liability doesn't exist. The 47 USC 230(c)(1) is fast-changing and evolving arena. With this policy, Wiki has painted a target on itself begging to be tested. I think that's unwise. Litigation of this sort would be extremely expensive. That's what the defendants in Rosenthal are learning; they pissed off a rich doctor and thought they had 47 USC 230(c)(1) protections. The subsequent litigation and appeals showed otherwise. 207.69.137.200 00:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
A similar situation exists with respect to Wikipedia and the DMCA. See the bottom of wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html 66.142.91.215 04:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/o/Wikipedia_talk%7EBiographies_of_living_persons_Archive_4_b434.html"