Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 10

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

WP:BLP1E in AfD for murder victims

A number of murder victims, such as people involved in 9/11 etc, are seen on AfD, and BLP1E is often used (and I use it too) when stating that just because the person was a victim, they are not inherently notable for anything else in their life. The thing is though, defense is usually thrown up that the biography is not of a (currently) living person, therefore BLP in it's entirety does not apply.

So what's the case here? BLP1E states If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. which is very true, yet the first line of BLP states Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Can BLP1E be used as a reason for AfD if the person is non notable besides ther death? Or should the WP:MEMORIAL be used instead? --Breno talk 13:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:WOTTA? Phil Sandifer 13:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Great response. violet/riga (t) 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This policy applies only to the living. While people here can argue and rant that it does or should apply to the dead as well it is clear that as it stands only living people are covered. Citing BLP1E is therefore not correct, but the reasoning behind it can still apply. violet/riga (t) 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks. --Breno talk 19:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Since deletion discussions are debates, you can raise whatever argument you like in them, whether they come from a policy page, an essay or whether you just made it up on the spot. Of course, sometimes an argument based on policy is going to be stronger than one that isn't, but most of the time it's actually a good thing to do as violet suggests and take existing ideas and build upon them. That's how policy is often created anyway. --bainer (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily oppose applying BLP1E to the recently dead, but it's hard not to see a very big slippery slope argument going on here. BLP1E is, at heart, a sensible policy, as there are many occasions when very real BLP issues arise from having an article on someone only known for one thing; this particularly often arises in the context of internet memes.

This does not mean, however, that it makes any sense whatsoever to go around deleting all articles on people known only for one event, especially in the case of the recently dead. There are many, many cases throughout history where someone's death is in and of itself notable; to run around deleting this sort of article because BLP1E exists is taking a sensible policy and twisting it well beyond the plane of anything that might pass for rationality. Rebecca 12:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I would say that you might use the spirit of BLP1E to argue for a deletion of a (relatively) long-dead person on AFD, or borrow arguments from it; but I don't think that BLP itself should cover such a thing. You have to remember that the reason why BLP is weighted towards removing and deleting things quickly is because news about a living person can travel and do damage fast--it only takes one news cycle for someone's life to be destroyed. By comparison, once someone's been dead a while? It just isn't so likely that one Wikipedia page is going to retroactively destroy their reputation, or ruin their (family's?) privacy, or anything like that. It might still happen, but the sense of urgency is gone; if it's an issue, it can be handled the traditional way via AFD. --Aquillion 16:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
When a person is famous only for the manner of their death, we probably want to consider heeding the advice of this policy to'cover the event, not the person. Quite often we end up with a built-in fork because a murder is covered in two or more separate articles, one about the murderer and one about the victim. It's always worth considering a merge in such instances. The name of the article isn't that important, but giving it a name other than the name of the victim may sometimes be merited--especially if there is more than one victim. --Tony Sidaway 17:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin phrase (nil nisi bonum)

Over at a certain arbitration case, I noticed Charles Matthews (one of the arbitrators) used an interesting Latin phrase in one of his comments. From De mortuis nil nisi bonum: "This expression is used in modern parlance with two nearly contradictory significances. In legal contexts, it refers to the principle of British, American, and other legal systems that defaming a deceased person is not actionable. In colloquial contexts, it indicates that it is socially inappropriate to say anything negative about a (recently) deceased person." - thought that explication might be relevant here, and worth some discussion if anyone wants to work out in which sense Wikipedia should apply this principle... (yes, the answer is "both"!) Carcharoth 12:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, though to clarify, I didn't mean that defaming a dead person is OK, just that there is (usually, unless there are living relatives) less repercussions. Carcharoth 12:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
From context [1], it's clear that Charles meant the colloquial sense. In short, he doesn't think we should tread on eggshells over some dead miscreant. To take an example, when Robert Maxwell died all kinds of muck came out, partly because during his lifetime he was so effective in using litigation and threats of litigation to silence journalists, partly because he himself was a major newspaper proprietor and could pull strings, and partly because he kept his financial malfeasance hidden during his lifetime. Obviously we would not want to conceal the extremely damaging, but easily verifiable and highly significant information about his misdeeds. --Tony Sidaway 13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia biographies of living persons are suitable for tabloids

I am working on an article which is a bio of a living person and about 50% of the information in the article is garnered from one single tabloid source. This policy states that “Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets”, emphasis on avoid. This is a very weak position. The Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy is also weak. It does not make any statement about tabloids such as “Wikipedia is not a tabloid.“. I, along with a group of editors, have been trying to get the article I just mentioned revised and/or deleted but can not because of these two weak policies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Period. Do you think other encyclopedias like Britannica, Encarta, etc allow their writers/editors to utilize information found in tabloids? Your weak policy is hurting Wikipedia and as long as articles like Margita Bangová which almost completely rely on tabloids like the Toronto Sun are allowed to withstand the editorial and deletion process because of your weak policy, then Wikipedia will never be a true encyclopedia. I urge you all to revisit this issue and take a stronger position. Not even my daughter’s first grade teacher would have allowed her to use a tabloid in any of her projects. Why can’t Wikipedia, which proclaims to be an encyclopedia, have the same standards for our educated, adult editors? --Chicaneo 17:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What you've got there is one or more POV pushers trying to turn it into a scandal article of a type only found in a particularly nasty kind of tabloid. There is probably a real article in there somewhere. The version I just reverted to looks like a good start. --Tony Sidaway 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What POV are we trying to push? —Psychonaut 17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

psst.. jimmy wales isn't god.

nothing he says is carved in stone, you don't need to quote him all the time, and you don't need to link to his specific words to make a point. that's pathetic. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.91.47 (talk • contribs)

He is signing the checks, though... --Jaysweet 20:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
He isn't anymore, I don't think. -Amarkov moo! 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff RfAR and this policy

The ArbCom's decision in this case quotes this policy, but appears to add more definition with the line: "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy." with regard to editors who want to restore a BLP article that an admin has deleted for violating BLP policy. Since it appears that ArbCom doesn't set policy, this statement needs community acceptance before being added to the current policy. Thus, I'm submitting to the community that this line be added to the current policy. CLA 01:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This isn't new - generally the onus is on people who want to add content to show that it's appropriate and compliant with any policies in the event of a dispute. WilyD 01:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Any objection to making this clear in this current policy? CLA 01:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, per WP:CREEP. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not the only one who thinks the line should be added: [2]. CLA 06:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
          • And WillyD is not the only one who doesn't think so. Fred is quite welcome to muck in here. ViridaeTalk 06:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
            • The line is ambiguous and shouldn't be added unless there's clarification about who assesses whether the burden has been fulfilled. Otherwise, some people will interpret it as meaning, "He has the burden of proof and I don't think he's met that burden -- I still consider the article noncompliant in some respect -- therefore it can't be restored." That attitude should not be encouraged. JamesMLane t c 08:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't need to be added to the policy. It's implicit. Although obviously there are many editors who don't believe this, that's not really a problem. --Tony Sidaway 09:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I more or less agree with this. It's not even implicit - it's explicit in a policy where it should be. Policies exist in a constellation, not as individual works - there's no need to regurgitate every policy in every other policy. Policies should be simple and understandable - making them longer only makes them less readable. It's not a terrible idea, but it's not a worthwhile one either - this policy is already too long, and needs to be shorter and clearer (without any substantial content change). Cheers, WilyD 13:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion. I'm concerned when I see people using ArbCom rulings as justifications for their actions since it isn't clear that ArbCom rulings constitute policy. If an ArbCom decision appears to clarify, redefine, or expand on policy, I think we should discuss incorporating their decision into the current policy, instead of relying on the shaky mechanism of directly quoting the ArbCom ruling as justification for whatever action we may be undertaking. Cla68 13:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
These things interact with one another in a way that is difficult to describe. I'll try to present a simple but workable summary:
We've adopted this policy in spite of some significant unease in parts of the community. It has strong implications, which are sometimes denied by people who are uncomfortable with it. Where those implications are ignored and this leads to harm, the arbitration committee may sometimes have to step in. Otherwise life goes on and we all do our best. --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This has one of the hallmarks of bad process:
If regulars keep having to say "don't take it personally" over and over and over, there's something deeply defective in the process that will be damaging to the encyclopedia project, even if you have a ready list of reasons why you absolutely have to do whatever the thing is people are taking personally.
Fortunately, we have not adopted these vague, never-stated "implications"; I see no consensus for any implications beyond inadequately sourced negative statements about living persons should be removed, and even that is clouded by the usual debate about what sources are reliable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

—Wikipedia:Verifiability
The burden of Verifiability is the burden of showing that adequate sources exist. That is already included in inadequately sourced negative statements about living persons should be removed; and is in any case old business, long before this policy existed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
As you ought to know, this policy goes considerably further than verifiability in its force, although it would be correct to say that it is basically a restatement of our existing policies. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Only in the respect that these unsourced statements must be removed, rather than tagged. A handful of people would like it to go further still; but I have never seen consensus for this; nor indeed have I ever seen a clear statement of what this crusade would like this policy to cover. Perhaps if they made one, there might be less opposition to claims of "implications". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no crusade, only a series of attempts to clarify the policy and to prevent its dilution (viz Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff). A warning has been given to certain editors that they should observe the letter and the spirit of this policy. Naturally the principles equally apply to us all. --Tony Sidaway 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Religion section of this page

It would probably help if this section were clarified to help resolve a potential question. Specifically regarding situations where the subject's religious views have changed, but the subject had previously self-identified as an adherent of the belief system s/he has since abandoned. Does the policy, as currently written, specifically preclude mention or categorization as "former (religion X)" or not? As it is written, any reference to the subject's earlier religious beliefs could be challenged according to this phrasing. John Carter 20:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The short answer is "it's not procluded, but make sure it's a)relevant and b)clear that it's a former association". Identifying Johnny Nobody as a former Zoroastrian is not the same as identifying him as a Zoroastrian - after his converstion to Discordianism, he might not want to be called a Zoroastrian - but if his former religion is somehow important (maybe it's widely thought to influence his writings?) then it'd be reasonable to discuss. Putting him in Category:Zoroastrians should be avoided, Category:Former Zoroastrians might reasonably be created to deal with the situation. Cheers, WilyD 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would argue for exercising caution in this respect. If a person describes himself as Zoroastrian or a former Zoroastrian, or published sources refer to this person as such, then these categorizations may be used. It is not enough that a person abandons a religion to be categorized as a "former xxxx", it must be explicitly stated in a valid source. As WiliD says, the mention of the religion or former religion needs to be relevant to the person's notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
A particular problem might arise if an individual seemingly converts to another religion, possibly by becoming an active member of it, but never explicitly states that s/he has converted "from" the previous religion. I suppose in those instances, when the prior known religion of the party is known, it might be possible to categorize them as a "Convert to (whatever)" but not necessarily as a "Convert from (prior faith)". Does that sound reasonable? John Carter 22:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed deletions: seek consensus-> obtain consensus

I've clarified the wording in the "Disputed deletions" section.

The wording:

Administrators should seek consensus before undeleting material that has been deleted citing this policy, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article.

has been changed to:

Administrators should obtain consensus before undeleting material that has been deleted citing this policy, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article.

That is, the word "seek" has been changed to "obtain". Obviously if an admin should seek consensus prior to undeleting, doing so if he doesn't actually obtain consensus is also wrong. The important point is not what forms the administrator goes through, but whether consensus exists for his action. --Tony Sidaway 08:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems uncontraversial. WilyD 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm still unclear on the relationship between this latitude for deletion and our longstanding rule of consensus. If one lone admin thinks there's a BLP violation, and deletes an article or part of an article, the deletion stands unless there's a consensus to reverse it? That seems to give way too much power to what's supposed to be a mop-and-bucket position. In practice, it would mean that the current rule -- lack of consensus defaults to "keep" -- would be changed so that lack of consensus defaults to "delete" if someone asserts a BLP issue.
Such a change could not be implemented under the guise of interpreting an ArbCom ruling, because the ArbCom doesn't have the authority to change a policy, let alone a policy as fundamental as the role of consensus. If some people think that the current policy is open to the interpretation above, then the policy should be reworded so that the interpretation is expressly excluded. JamesMLane t c 18:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The deleting administrator doesn't have the last word. If there is consensus to undelete, the article is undeleted. Anybody who undeletes a BLP without consensus will be taken to arbitration by me, that's a promise. --Tony Sidaway 19:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Your adamant stance avoids the question. Suppose there's no consensus either way, before the article is deleted or afterward. Your position still seems to me to mean that one admin can delete the article, even without consensus (not against consensus, just without it), and thereafter the article can't be undeleted because there's no consensus for undeletion. That's why I wrote that, even though the rule still states that lack of consensus defaults to "keep", the practical effect of your version would be that lack of consensus defaults to "delete" if someone asserts a BLP issue. Therefore, your version is a change, not an interpretation. JamesMLane t c 03:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't spot this comment until today. I'm sorry if my stance seems adamant in some way. Obviously if there's no consensus that an article passes the BLP we don't want it on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I have seen many complaints saying "Admin deletion of articles based on claims of BLP" is somehow unwiki (or otherwise problematic). In my opinion the key issue is that we must have clueful behavior with regard to certain issues (legal issues because of financial results and moral issues because of community results) and we have no real mechanism for ensuring clueful behavior. So we rely on admins who if they screw up lose their adminship. We need to do better. But this is as good as we have got at the moment. WAS 4.250 19:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep. To clarify, I don't think Tony Sidaway taking someone to arbcom is some big stigma. The Arbitration Committee could well say "the guy did his best and that's all we ask of anyone", or they could take the case and clarify their view , which could well have matured in the meantime. We depend on admins to be clueful. We depend on arbitrators to step to one side and look at the situation very carefully, with an eye to the good of the encyclopedia. Meanwhile I suggest that undeleting in the absence of consensus is probably a faux-pas, and where this policy is involved it could have serious consequences so it's good to be circumspect about acting to undo such a deletion. --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course - but having a clue does go both ways. To be perfectly honest, if I undelete any article that's deleted citing BLP without obtaining consensus, anyone taking me to ArbCom over it will end up looking the fool, not I. WilyD 03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision. Given your expressed belief above, I think you may find the reality quite surprising. --Tony Sidaway 10:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of the ArbCom precedents you've been pimping so hard Tony. Rest assured that you've missed critical parts of my belief above which should make it clear to the clueful why my belief matches reality. The ArbCom members are not stupid, and they won't something immensely dumb just for the sake of following precendence. Cheers, WilyD 16:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
WilyD, would you be careful when using prejudicial words such as "pimping"? They make your comments look like personal attacks.
I'm sure that arbcom wouldn't do something "immensely dumb", but if someone did compromise the encyclopedia I don't think arbcom would think it dumb to sanction them (qv, their recent actions) --Tony Sidaway 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should add something like, "if there is no consensus to delete.." which would allow for very obvious deletions, but also point out where the community should become involved. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good point, and implemented, no consensus is a default to a keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
And, was reverted without explanation, apparently that's in dispute as well. When did the "no consensus" default change to "delete"? As I recall, making such a change was discussed here a while back, and there was certainly no consensus to implement it, so as far as I know, "no consensus to delete" still equals "keep". Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the initial admin deletion is the effective equivalent of an AfD speedy delete, so subsequent undeletion should require consensus. Otherwise, we invite wheelwars. In BLP cases we prefer to err on the side of caution – no damage will be done to anyone if the undeletion takes a little longer, while a hasty undelete could potentially harm the subject. Crum375 06:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Crum375 is right that "a hasty undelete could potentially harm the subject" but it could also harm wikipedia and the undeleter if a lawsuit is filed over the undelete. The key clue needed in the case of an undelete is "What is the potential harm if I undelete?" If you don't know the answer to this question then you should not undelete. Are you sure you know the reason for the delete? Do you really understand the legal consequences? Do you really understand copyright law? privacy laws? libel laws? the ability of deep pockets to bankrupt even if they lose a case? Do you really understand the consequences of it becoming a meme that Wikipedia is immoral (how could that happen? A suicide or two over true but devestatingly embarrassing "trivia" could wreak havok on wikipedia.) WAS 4.250 06:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
All of those things are conceivably possible. I won't say they're tremendously likely, but they're possible. And if I were to contact the deleting admin, and (s)he said "Hey, the guy's friend contacted me, the guy's threatening suicide and he's pretty sure the guy's serious. He's checking into a mental hospital in a few days, I'll undelete it once I've confirmed he's there", then sure, there's no way in the world I'd undelete, and that's why you contact the deleting admin before you do anything else. On the other hand, if the other admin basically just says "I thought it was crap, but there's no particular reason other than that", then I would very likely bring it up for discussion, unless they could provide some reasoning that convinces me that well, yeah, it is irredeemable. As to your doomsday scenarios, WAS, there's always a doomsday scenario. And actually, yes, I understand the things you mentioned pretty well. I'm not in any way for original reporting of true but embarrassing "trivia" here, if it's titillating but not widely known and of significant importance. That's exactly why we should stick to widely available information. We should avoid pseudo-biographies, and mention people notable only in connection with an event in the article about the event, not in a pseudo-"biography" under their own name. I'm all for all of these things. What I'm not for is the usurpation of the community's role in deciding its course, because what I see happening here is that what's intended to be done is to first change the policy, do a bunch of stuff under it, browbeat anyone who disagrees into shutting up (and in some cases drive them off the project), and then use "Well we've made 150 deletions under this and not a single one's been overturned. Of course it has consensus." And no one will think to say "Well wait a minute, we had the same group doing and supporting the deletion every time, but we had a different group opposing them every time around. How's that consensus? Doesn't that indicate a lot of people actually don't agree?" So, I issued my challenge above. Let's bring the whole community together, and really get in as many people as we can, to really figure out what we want for a code of ethics. That's an important decision, and one every person here has the right to input on. It's not something we should backdoor in by imposing a few people's ethics on everyone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You say "I'm not for is the usurpation of the community's role in deciding its course". Good. If the deleting admin doesn't support undeletion and you don't think he's given an adequate reason for deletion, take it to the community. Then when you have community agreement that the article should not be deleted, undelete it. --Tony Sidaway 10:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. I also, however, think we should make every effort to get the community involved at this stage, to get a good gauge for what people believe would be a good reason to perform such a deletion in the first place. If we take steps to ensure that we have clear guidelines that really do enjoy support of the wider community, we can avoid a whole lot of trouble later—someone acting according to such guidelines isn't likely even to be questioned, someone acting outside of them knows they are likely to be and better have a very good reason, and can think about how to explain such actions before the question is ever even asked. Let's resolve as many problems as we can before they ever even become a problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Tony writes: "If the deleting admin doesn't support undeletion and you don't think he's given an adequate reason for deletion, take it to the community. Then when you have community agreement that the article should not be deleted, undelete it." I agree with all that. I would add, though: "If you have community agreement that the article should be deleted, then it stays deleted. If there is no community agreement either way, then the article gets undeleted, because lack of consensus defaults to keep." If people think it's necessary to be more explicit, we could add that OFFICE can override the process, where, for example, the Foundation concludes that there's a defamation problem. JamesMLane t c 18:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Your suggestion comflicts with deletion policy, which allows for undeletion after review only if there is consensus to undelete. --Tony Sidaway 17:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. So an admin can delete George W. Bush and if somebody notices the deletion they would need to take it to DRV and spend hours/days before there is overwhelming consensus to undelete? Or does this only apply to non-notable subjects? More clarification needed on how this scenario will be avoided. 64.229.202.120 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we generally apply the rule of reason. If I saw someone had deleted George W. Bush citing BLP as the reason, I'll certainly be quickly contacting them to ask what the hell's going on (though I would do that, at least, sometimes certain types of vandalism do require selective version deletion, and the only way to do that is to delete the page and restore it minus the offending revisions). But if no explanation was quickly forthcoming, and looking at the recent revisions I could find no such revisions in need of selective deletion, it would be very likely I would undelete it, figuring that in such a case my actions would later be found to be correct. And of course, if there was no such revision that needed to be deleted, and the admin were acting up or making a point or anything of the sort, I'd imagine they'd find the community and ArbCom taking a very dim view of what they did. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You'd think, but the arbcom don't seem to care as long as BLP is cited. violet/riga (t) 08:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It's good to make it clear that quibbles about whether the BLP actually applies should not be used as an excuse to subvert this policy. Raising hypotheticals such as the deletion of George W. Bush isn't illuminating because, well, it's hypothetical. Let's handle the case calmly if it ever occurs. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rationale

Rationale

Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominence comes a measure of responsibility. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion and understanding. The Foundation and Jimbo Wales get well-founded complaints about biographical content on living people every day — people justifiably upset at inaccurate or distorted articles. The successful resolution of such complaints is a touchy matter.

The problem can be compounded if the subject tries to edit their own article to remove problematic content. Since they are likely not regular Wikipedians, they will be unaware of our policies, and will often be accused of vandalism or revert warring when they are in fact trying to edit in good faith.

Accordingly, editors must take particular care with writing and editing biographies of living persons, and biographical material anywhere on Wikipedia, with the following practice in mind:

  • The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies;
  • If the subject edits the article, it is important to assume good faith and deal with them politely (see Wikipedia:Autobiography for content decisions in this regard);
  • If an anon IP address or a new account turns up to blank a page about a living person, or a section of it, it may well be the subject. Try not to act aggressively, but instead engage the person in dialogue, and check that the article in question does not contain any unsourced or poorly sourced criticism. If it does, delete that portion.

The rationale section has recently been cut down. Personally, I think it should stay more expanded. It gives a better summary of why BLP exists and better summary of how to do it before diving into detail in the rest of the document. Things like: "Accordingly, editors must take particular care with writing and editing biographies of living persons, and biographical material anywhere on Wikipedia, with the following practice in mind: The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies;" should be stated up front in the document. I really don't see major benefits of cutting the section down, and I think the additional text holds value in that section. BLP feels like processed food, and the more we work on it the more we lose sight on why we are doing the things we are doing (as in.. the rationale) -- Ned Scott 00:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this sounds wise. There is so much ambiguity surrounding this; detail is a good thing. Rebecca 09:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph of this section is atrociously didactic. I'm certain words could be found to inform contributors of the policy and its rationale without lecturing them in such a pontifical way. Beneficientor


"Wikipedia is a top-ten website." Cite? Top-ten of what? As determined by whom? 71.212.14.220 00:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Alexa ranks wikipedia in the top-ten most trafficked sites on the net. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This policy needs to address coatrack articles

I find that I spend an inordinate amount of my time as an admin trying in vain to fix coatrack articles on Wikipedia. These are articles about people who are only notable for being related to a celebrity and virtually always consist of nothing but embarrassing incidents that are the fodder of tabloid (and these days, mainstream) newspaper articles. It is virtually impossible to keep these articles NPOV since the only things that are known about their lives are negative incidents that are supposedly embarrassing to whoever they are related to (for example, a relative of a politician who gets arrested for marijuana possession). Trying to delete these articles is never successful (as technically, they pass WP:N). Pointing editors to the BLP and NPOV policies seems to be equally ineffective. The editors always respond by saying "we're not being biased, we're just listing the facts". I can (and have) argued about how this violates the spirit of both NPOV and BLP until I'm blue in the face, but it is completely futile. The articles always revert back to the state of being coatracks. This problem can and does have significant effects on real people's lives (often people who are not notable enough to have a public forum to counter whatever bias we present here). Can we please add something concrete to this policy that will prevent the proliferation of this type of editing, i.e. articles becoming lists of well-sourced negative facts about people of borderline notability? Kaldari 16:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

But what about when there is, for instance, an article on a career criminal? There is no way to write such an article without referencing all their crimes, but that looks a lot like a coatrack article. BLP is simply too powerful to put things in it which have a potential for any reasonable misuse. -Amarkov moo! 16:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It is completely different when the crimes are notable in and of themselves. For example, no matter how many speeding tickets I get, I'm never going to get an article in Wikipedia. The type of articles I'm talking about are basically lists of otherwise non-notable facts: public intoxication, speeding, marijuana possession, love trists, etc. Incidents that are only notable because they embarrass someone famous (by association). Kaldari 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a new phenomenon. Look at Billy Carter. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The article about Bill Carter shows that he had a significant public profile on his own behalf. His activities with respect to the government of Libya were investigated by a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Billy Carter-Libya Investigation) [3]. --Tony Sidaway 16:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This policy already does address coatracks, and several coatracks have been successfully wiped out under this policy. If you've been having problems dealing with coatracks, I can help and advise. --Tony Sidaway 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Due to my masochistic nature I've been trying to patrol the relatives-of-politicians articles (both Democrat and Republican). I'm usually successful at moderating the strong POV-tendancies that these articles attract, but not without significant and sustained effort where I end up having to repeat the same debates over and over and over again. The article that I'm having trouble with this week is Al Gore III. This article is especially problematic since Al Gore III is not a public figure (he has no involvement in politics himself) and he seems to enjoy speeding and smoking weed (at least according to most news sources). The point I especially have a problem with is that editors keep reinserting information about Gore III being suspended from school for smoking weed at a school dance when he was 13. To me, this is a very obvious violation of Gore III's privacy, and has no place in an encyclopedia article. Every time I explain this, however, I am shouted down by accusations of "whitewashing" and "political censorship" and the editors insist that it should be included in the article (along with ever other arrest or infraction ever committed by Gore III) because it is well-sourced (having been mentioned in a book about Al Gore). What can I do to stop these kind of edits without having to argue until I'm blue in the face every time??? Kaldari 17:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Just remember that in many cases it'd preferable to move and rewrite, rather than simply delete, such as people known for single events. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
See WP:PSEUDO. I think this is relevant. Waltontalk 16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:PSEUDO, Wikipedia:Avoiding harm, and Wikipedia:Coatrack are all relevant, but none of them are policy. We need specific policy on this, not just vague guidelines and essays. Indeed, I think the reason those pages have appeared is due to the lack of specific policy on this issue. Kaldari 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree - I hope for WP:HARM to be upgraded to an official guideline, although it probably needs some tweaking first. Feel free to make changes or discuss at WT:HARM. Waltontalk 14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Time and again I see criminal issues pop up at WP:BLPN and find them elsewhere. I really think we need at least a guideline or page on how BLP articles should handle BLP crime issues, specifically arrest, trial, accusations, convictions, age of convictions, crime victims, etc. WT:HARM is nice, but I think we need something like WP:BLP CRIME. A recent issue I came across is the Misuse of Infobox criminal to give undue weight to a person's crime and thus raise potential BLP and NPOV issues. I posted a thread on this at Admin Noticeboard: Misuse of Infobox criminal in this regard. There seems to be many ways to give too much weight to a person's criminal involvement and I think if we had some specific BLP guidance to turn on criminal matters, we could all get on the same page faster. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing Reliable Sources under Sources

The restriction: "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." under the Sources heading has been shown to have a flaw. Some people knowledgeable in specific fields maintain blogs as a type of personal correspondence which is allowable under the WP:RS guidelines (Quoted: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand"). Specifically, this was brought to light by Quatloo's reversion of a correct edit based on a blog of a reliable and trustworthy source (by every definition or than Quatloo's) on the Fred Saberhagen talk page. Quatloo generally disagreed with the consensus of other editors that found nothing wrong with the original edit, basing his entire argument on this line of WP policy.

This issue could be resolved by the addition of the word "salacious" at the beginning of the sentence that I am contending has a flaw. This would seem to specify what the policy was intended to combat while allowing reports that may not yet meet Quatloo's exceedingly strict standards. I contend that we should use common sense when determining whether a source is valid, which Quatloo did not. Additionally, there may be some review required of the policy about when the WP:BLP switches to the (currently imaginary) WP:BDP (Biography of a Dead Person). Spherical Time 04:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Some people maintain blogs designed entirely to criticize others. Here's one that got by me: [4], in which the individual who wrote the blog also placed a link to it at the end of that individual's entry. This is purely an academic argument, no salaciousness involved. Straightforward language to disallow this is necessary. I think your case is simply an exception. -Jmh123 14:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The "Reliable source" guidelines aren't perfect and should never be used as a reason to alter this policy. Rather, revise the guideline to conform with all existing policies. And certainly disregard the guideline in the meantime if by following it you will break this policy. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
RS is a useless guideline, but it at least doesn't contradict this policy, Spherical. The policy on sourcing is V, and it's clear that self-published sources may not be used as third-party sources on living persons. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
May not be used at all? Not even for personal quotes (assuming they are relevant)? I think you are wrong to dismiss the RS guideline. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The point is I can start a blog, write "Johnny Nobody is a paedophile" and then it's a source? No ... if third party opinions are relevant, they'll be repeated in reliable secondary sources. And yes, Slim's completely off-base about RS. Pay it no nevermind. WilyD 22:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
What determines how this policy is applied to deceased persons, or reportedly deceased persons? Is a person only considered deceased when a verifiable source surfaces, according to policy? Does the policy apply, in the case of Quatloo's argument, to Mr. Fred Saberhagen's article simply because he is still considered living because of the policy which disallows the use of a reliable, yet unverifiable source's claim of his death? This logic is circular in nature, apparently. When Scalzi made the edit, Mr. Saberhagen was clearly deceased, and therefore this policy does not apply. But when it was applied, it was correct because Wikipedia had not verified the death of Mr. Saberhagen.
As you can see, the whole argument and 'edit war' relating to Mr. Saberhagen has left me with a lot of questions, and I believe these questions stem from the fact that there is no clear definition of who is living and who is deceased. I think, for clarity's sake, there should be a definition of the terms 'living persons' and 'deceased persons,' and in the end who has the right to decide this status of such persons. Digitalsabre 17:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The Saberhagen Incident was problematic, but I can see at least one problem with permitting the use of blogs written by authoritative figures, which is in determining who precisely is an authoritative figure. If Daniel Pipes were to write on his blog that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad carries bombs in his turban, I would have to fight (and lose) a battle on that talkpage against those convinced that Pipes is an authority.
On the other hand, there are several living people with bios on WP who are so marginal that they will be mentioned in perhaps four or five reliable sources altogether. If, say, a Times correspondent in South Africa were to discuss on his blog a particular member of SWAPO who is otherwise mentioned twice in English-language reliable sources, I would be a little pissed that I couldn't include it. Hornplease

BLP template on non-biographical articles

An editor has now twice inserted the {{blp}} template onto Fox News Channel controversies talk page with the explaination "adding {{blp}} tag since living persons are involved". I don't really follow his logic, since the template is specifically for biographies and the article isn't about a person at all. If we use his logic, we can extend this to any article that mentions a living person. I think that's a pretty far leap... what do you guys think? /Blaxthos 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion by request

If the subject of the article requests deletion, is it done provided the requester is indeed that person? VoltronForce 06:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Most often not, even if they propose the article for deletion on WP:AFD. This is then argued there and there is generally no agreement. Some argue for retention on the grounds that the person is notable. Others argue for deletion if the person is only marginally notable. Of course the article is deleted if the person is not notable, but that is the case who ever proposes the deletion. --Bduke 06:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

why policy -> policy2?

Geni, why are you switching the policy tag to policy2? Why is it better to not say editors should only edit the page in ways that reflect consensus? For that matter, why does the policy2 template exist? --Allen 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well first rather a lot of this policy appears to come from arbcom and random jimbo statements rather than consensus and second we have no idea how widely this page is accepted by the community.Geni 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This page has very wide acceptance in my experience of dealing with editors who want to see it applied. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
err yes that is to be expected. I mean generaly those who wish to see a policy aplied tend to support it one some level.Geni 19:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha, that sentence is a good example of the importance of the comma. I meant to write: "... in my experience of dealing with editors, who want to see it applied." :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This policy is one of the few that are designed to be prescriptive rather than merely descriptive. If community members decide to allow libel, or allow illegal privacy violations, or allow deliberately non neutral articles, or allow articles to stay that are merely tabloid or attack pieces; then the policies regarding those things would not be changed to reflect a new claimed accurate description - instead people who would destroy Wikipedia by such behaviors are eliminated from the community or are educated that there are limits to what policy changes the community may make. WAS 4.250 07:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Are the rules any different for political candidates?

In biographies of political candidates, it is not surprising that some people want to add (or remove) material to glorify or deprecate that person. Should the rules be any different for an article about such a person? They are covered by the section, "Well known public figures" but is that enough?

In the heat of a political campaign there may be events that are notable - or more likely that supporters or opponents want to highlight - but those events may be piddling details in the long-term big picture. If twenty years from now somebody wrote a biography those details might be too small even to include in a book-length biography, but today somebody thinks they are notable in the context of a political campaign.

Should we write as if we were looking back from a future when the candidate has retired from political life and choose only those events which are notable in his entire life or should we give more leeway for items that might be notable today as possibly relevant to the political campaign even though we know those details will fade into oblivion after the heat of a campaign? Sbowers3 18:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A related point: BLP frequently mentions "sources" (plural). If an item is single-sourced is that reason enough to remove it? Sbowers3 19:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

On your second point ... it depends. If the single source is reliable, then there is no reason to remove the item; if the source is unreliable, then the item may be removed. On your first point, I think it requires case-by-case evaluation. Any decision to include or exclude such content (assuming for the moment that it is reliably sourced) must be based in the NPOV policy, the principle that Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and the fact that we cannot know whether an item of information will be relevant in 20 minutes, let alone 20 years. In essence, I think it's always better to base decisions on known information than speculation about what may or may not be relevant in the future. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Sbowers3 wants to remove, and has removed this from Fred Thompson. A one sentence comment that Thompson's actions conflict with his public current image. A single source, or several sources shouldn't matter, but if it does it mentioned in the following sources: [5][6][7][8][9][10] Sbowers3 has been removing anything that has been critical of Thompson for over a month, while he adds supportive material.[11] Plantocal 22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside Plantocal's dispute with another editor and myself, I'd like to better understand WP:BLP so that I myself will do the right thing. I was hoping to do this at an abstract level but I suppose I will have to be more specific. There is a situation that I think violates BLP. The editor has been active for less than a month so probably is not an expert on BLP. I've been active for about two months and I'm certainly not an expert. There is another editor who has been contributing for a year and a half who is likely more expert. He and I both think that the new editor is violating BLP. What I wonder is whether to grant him more leeway because the subject is a political candidate. There are many edits involved but here is one of the simpler. Many reliable sources have repeated an allegation published in a single news article. So while there is the appearance of multiple sources, they are all based on a single source. That news article contains a fact that is not disputed. Nobody objects to including that fact in the Wikipedia article. The news article went beyond that undisputed fact to include an allegation from a single unreliable source. (The source was a political opponent of the subject and had a history of disagreeing with the subject.) The news article concluded with commentary to the effect that the allegation was not consistent with the subject's image. The senior editor and I do not object to the inclusion of the undisputed fact. We do object to inclusion of the badly sourced allegation and the closing commentary on the grounds of NPOV, particularly in the context of a BLP. This talk page may not be the best place to resolve this dispute. (What would be the best way to get guidance from experts on NPOV and BLP?) My question for this BLP talk page is whether we should allow more leeway in the case of a political candidate? If an allegation even badly sourced is good enough for the major media is it good enough for Wikipedia? Should we relax our standards in the case of a political candidate or should we hold to the usual standards? I'm not asking you to judge this specific case but rather to help provide the criteria for evaluating the case and similar cases. Sbowers3 02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You said: "The news article went beyond that undisputed fact to include an allegation from a single unreliable source."
My response: According to BLP at the top of the page, "unsourced or poorly sourced material must be removed immediately." The Boston Globe is hardly an "unreliable source". You can't remove an opinion just because you don't like the opinion.
In order to help Sbowers3 "provide the criteria for evaluating the case," this is the case and full quote he disputes is: "The Boston Globe concluded, 'The view of Thompson as a Nixon mole is strikingly at odds with the former Tennessee senator's longtime image as an independent-minded prosecutor who helped bring down the president he admired'."
Also an admin. did discuss this.[12] He or she wrote "This article should have more critique similar to Hillery_clinton#Controversies and Barack Obama to be broad in its coverage per Good article criteria #3. Thompson is a politician and such critique goes with the territory." Plantocal 08:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether I like an opinion. What matters is whether Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or is merely an echo board for every bit of politically-based allegation that makes it into the press. Sbowers3 13:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Plantocal is avoiding my question which I now restate: Do we stick with WP:BLP or do we stretch it for political candidates? Or is the answer that we start with it and evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether to expand BLP for political subjects?

My second question is what is the proper way to request an evaluation by BLP experts? Sbowers3 13:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that we should neither expand nor contract the BLP policy for politicians. The fact of someone being a politician should not affect how content policies are applied to articles about them. Content must still be attributable to reliable sources and must cover the subject from a neutral point of view (this includes a requirement to not place "undue weight" on any aspect of the subject, positive or negative). Whether particular items/sentences are included or excluded will usually depend on judgments by individual editors, but I do not believe we should treat politicians on the whole any better or worse than others. As for your second question, such evaluations can be requested at the BLP noticeboard (a request for comment works as well for cases needing dispute resolution, but is a more formal process). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What is an attack page?

Yesterday, I flagged this archived version of an article for speedy deletion as an attack page based on my interpretation of WP:BLP. The article contains a series of serious allegations - either direct ("disgraced town supervisor", "rife with allegations of corruption") or by association ("his office was accused of covering up the disappearence of over one million dollars", he "refused to [resign] although the School Superintendent eventually fled to Arizona") - without any balancing material whatsoever. I was unable to access the sources for verification: the first, in a 1995 edition of New York Times, is now available by subscription only; the second points only to a general archive of the Buffalo News, which does not appear to contain the cited article. I have therefore no idea how closely the article reflects editorial coverage or if it reflects it at all.

I should add that the subject of the article is still active in local politics, is clearly still highly respected (in some quarters at least) as he is chairman of the town's chamber of commerce, president of his local temple, and a board member of the township's land trust. He appears to be a lawyer by profession.

Now, the writer of the article stubbed it later on yesterday but these allegations remain in the history. Also, an admin detagged it saying remove invalid speedy tag; not an attack page. What is the position? Is it an attack page or not? Should future similar instances be ignored? If so, it seems to me that WP:BLP needs toning down. ROGER TALK 07:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the crucial issue in this case is the specific wording of criterion G10 of the speedy deletion criteria. Namely, a page is only speedy-able per G10 when there is no NPOV version to revert to. In this case, the article could have been reverted to this version and trimmed as necessary. In its trimmed state, the article has issues with notability and may be a good candidate for proposed deletion, but that's a matter that is best considered separately from BLP issues. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a very helpful observation, thank you. (And, yes, notabiity is best dealt with separately.) ROGER TALK 07:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 07:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARM proposed as guideline

WP:HARM has been proposed as a formal guideline. Feel free to edit the proposal as needed, or discuss on the talk page. Waltontalk 11:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can subject alter his bio without having to source it?

As a rather well known LP myself, I have a question: since I know my own career and it appears that published sources don't, can I alter what is written without having to source it? Michael Howard MP, former British Home Secretary. PS sorry about the name, it is an internal parliamentary nickname with the profanity changed to something more suitable for use as an online handle. Owlperson 20:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The above user has been blocked [13] for impersonating Michael Howard, SqueakBox 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that, no, you can't alter the article without sourcing, as the verifiability policy says, what counts is "verifiability, not truth" - even though you might know something to be so, unless it's recorded by a reputable source then it can't go in. Of course, though we like our verifiable sources to be online, just out of laziness, it's not strictly necessary; in your case, surely there must be a lot of references to your activities in Hansard from before the time it started appearing online? I would also caution you to be careful of the conflict of interest guidelines (I'm a little surprised no-one's thrown that one at you already!) and note the advice in the autobiography guidelines (it's OK to remove incorrect information about yourself, but be careful about introducing new material about yourself - it would be better if you could get someone else to do it for you). I notice elsewhere you asked about how to get an acceptable photo of yourself in the article - the easiest way would be for you to upload a photo of yourself with the photographers' agreement to release it under the GFDL licence or one of the Creative Commons licences (these are selected from a drop-down menu when you upload a picture). Finally, I'd just like to say welcome to Wikipedia, your presence is appreciated (even though I'd never vote for your party!) - you couldn't persuade your recently-retired former opposite number to join too, could you? :) -- Arwel (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Verifiability is tied to reliability. If there are incorrect statements from sources we normally regard as reliable, please let us know in email (info-en@wikipedia.org) and we'll do our best to fix the problem. For instance if a biographer has made an error and we've propagated the error from the biography we should treat it as any publisher would treat errata. Of course there is a limit to what we can do, there. Where there was a dispute over whether a single source was in error, we'd regard the single source as unreliable or of unknown reliability on that subject, but where the dispute was over several apparently independent, apparently reputable, sources, it might be difficult to write them all off as unreliable. --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've contacted Michael Howard's office, who confirm that Owlperson is a hoaxer, whom I've indef blocked. Tyrenius 13:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "Persons"

Yeah, this is probably stupid. But, considering that several companies which use a living animal in advertising and such. Considering the threats of lawsuits were we to add content to articles about these animals ("Morris the cat's mess of kittens", depicting him as a unusually libidinous and irresponsible animal, for example), would it make sense to extend BLP to living animals as well? John Carter 17:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was brought up in a recent AfD about a dead goat... :-) Waltontalk 10:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to see how one could libel a cat. There is the issue of product/trademark disparagement (remember Oprah and beef producers; if not, see Oprah#Rankings_as_world.27s_most_influential_woman?) not sure if that's really a BLP issue though. Carlossuarez46 18:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Bad example. Not thinking so much of the trademark, as maybe disparaging the specific animal involved. Maybe "Moonie's mess of puppies" would be a better example. But some of the animals used for publicity for various zoos and some of the pets of famous people (like Spot Fetcher) could be subject to inaccurate statements. And in some of those cases, like Su Lin, the info might be included to disparage the entity they're associated with, in this case the San Diego Zoo, who might not specifically qualify under BLP as a group, not a person. I hope the situation never arises, but weirder things have happened. John Carter 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Adjectives

Since there's some dispute on which adjectives should describe how we edit articles, I figure we should discuss it. Compassion, rightly or wrongly, is invoking a sense of "biased in favour of a flattering view" - I assume this isn't what's intended (since it would conflict with both encyclopaediousity, and neutral point of view) - so is there some adjective(s) that everyone would be happy with? To be honest, running "compassion" and "fairness" through a thesaurus (.com!), I like the synonyms for fairness (decorum, decency, impartiality, courtesy) than I do compassion (empathy, benevolence, mercy) WilyD 20:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. fairness?
  2. decorum?
  3. propriety?
  4. compassion?
  5. understanding?
  6. impartiality?
  7. conscientiousness?
  8. benevolence?
  9. decency?
  10. fair mindedness?
  11. justness?
  12. sensitivity?
  13. thoughtfullness?
  14. judiciousness?
  15. measure?
Is "justly" a word? I would favor some adjective that denotes "fairness" rather than compassion. Compassion in my opinion is way to gobbly gucky. Anyways :) --Tom 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Justly is an adverb, not a noun. "Justness" is probably the closest without a more substantial reword. I personally might like "fairness and judiciousness", or "fairness and decorum" .. WilyD 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
We can and do have our personal biases; however, we must be impartial when it comes to writing article content. We can consider someone who raped and killed and 4-year-old to be evil, twisted, or repulsive, but we can't write that in the article. We can consider someone who shields a child from a hail of bullets to be self-sacrificing, noble, and good, but we can't write that either. Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, not a compassionate one, not a favourable one, and not a hostile one.
As for some of the terms proposed above, I believe most pose serious problems:
  1. fairness - probably a more subjective term than "goodness"; let's avoid the inevitable discussions about what in life is or isn't fair; besides, trying to impose or create fairness is not the same as being impartial
  2. decorum - I don't think propriety or politeness is the word we want
  3. propriety - see above
  4. compassion - see my initial comment
  5. understanding - too similar to compassion
  6. impartiality - hell, yes! Just the (verifiable, relevant, neutral) facts, please.
  7. conscientiousness - It's alright to suggest that we should remember that our actions have real-world consequences
  8. benevolence - violates NPOV
  9. decency - much too subjective. Is it decent to be eat a dog? Is it decent to be homosexual? Let's not go down that road and avoid these pointless debates that'll not be resolved in our lifetimes ...
  10. fair mindedness - same as fairness
  11. justness - same as fairness. Wikipedia is not an appropriate vehicle for promoting social (or any other kind of) justice (see WP:NOT#SOAP), except that which comes through the neutral presentation of facts.
  12. sensitivity - to whom? In what way? How much? Too subjective ...
  13. thoughtfullness - this is either the same as "compassionate" and thus POV or is a more ambiguous version of "conscientiousness"
I think this does miss a little bit of a point, which is a rehash of the NPOV "undue weight" clause - when I see "fairness" or "justness" I don't mean including of excluding things in life that are or aren't fair, but giving a fair, or balanced view of someone, rather than an unfair, or unbalanced description. Fairness in this sense isn't quite the same as "impartial", but it's quite similar. Impartial also connotates "unconcerned" - which I think is wrong - we should be concerned that biographies leave fair impressions of people - that doesn't mean that the biography of the Scarborough Rapist shouldn't leave the reader with the impression that the guy has little or no redeeming value as a human being - a fair, neutral, balanced article will lead any halfway intelligent reader to conclude this. WilyD 21:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I basically agree, but am worried that "fairness" is too easily interpreted as moral/ethical/subjective fairness, rather than fairness in reporting). Impartial does not necessarily imply unconcerned; there are people I like and am (in a sense) concerned about, but I can still write about them impartially. I think the combination of "impartial" and "conscientious" should avoid any confusion with "unconcerned". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, what about something like "measure" or "judiciousness" then? Or ...and the subjects of our articles must be approached impartially and conscientiously. -> ...and a fair treatment must be given to the subjects of all articles.? Or does that present the same danger in misinterpretation? ...and a thoughtful, balanced treatment must be given to the subjects of our articles.? ...and a judicious approach to all articles must be used to ensure fair, unbiased treatment.? These are just suggested - I'm married to the meaning, not the wording. WilyD 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I'd rather avoid any use of the word "fair" given how it can be interpreted. How about rewriting the whole sentence or simply deleting the last part.

Biographical material must therefore be written impartially, with sensitivity to the privacy of the subject and a strict adherence to our content policies.

or ...

Biographical material must therefore be written with sensitivity to the subject and a strict adherence to our content policies.

-- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't particularly like "compassion" either. While that may seem great, approaching a subject with "compassion" leads to a lack of neutrality just as surely as approaching it with hatred would, just the other direction. What's wrong with simply saying that articles on living people must be held to the absolute highest standards of conformity with the requirements of reliable sourcing and neutrality? Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I've gone for "Biographical material must therefore be written with sensitivity to the subject's human dignity and a strict adherence to our content policies."
The word "sympathy" or "sympathetic" shouldn't be used. However there is a right and a wrong way to write about bad things. This statement is intended to address the distinction between the journalistic approach and the encyclopedic approach. We report the verifiable facts, and the significant opinions, but not in a way that suggests prurience, muckraking, or schadenfreude, or anything else inappropriate to an encyclopedia. We uphold the human dignity of our subjects, even if we don't like them as people. This seems to be very much the spirit of neutral point of view to me. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the portion about "human dignity" should be removed. We shouldn't dictate other peoples' dignity. How about just being as direct as possible: "Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies." -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If adjectives have to be used, I think the combination of "fair and impartial" might make the point clearly. The only problem with referring to "our content policies" is the lack of specificity. But that might be an advantage in some cases too. John Carter 19:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Human dignity is the form of words favored by the arbitration committee, and with good reason. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean much when they failed to define what they meant by "human dignity". If some of the greatest philosophers could not agree over the course of over two millenia, I doubt ArbCom will during the course of our lifetime. I am restoring the original wording. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I've used it too. So has Jimbo Wales. I'm sure I know what it means. People who don't, have the option of avoiding editing articles involving living people. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem, of course, is that many other editors are sure they know what it means, and disagree strongly with you - clearer policies subject to less misinterpretation are better. WilyD 21:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
What WilyD said. Also, rather than restoring the original wording, which was "sensitivity to the subject", I have replaced "human dignity" with "privacy". I think privacy is a more agreed-upon term and more accurately reflects the idea that we want to convey. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin intervention within this policy

I've restored the phrase "even if they have been editing the article themselves." to the provision for administrators to renforce the removal of poorly sourced or unsourced material with page protection and blocks. This policy has long overriden concerns such as this, and the wording (which was removed without prior discussion as far as I can tell) has been in the policy for at least a year [14]. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no prior discussion that I'm aware of. I thought I'd make the change and see if stuck. My reasoning was as follows: editors in good standing can have genuine disagreements about whether particular content complies with the BLP policy. In cases where the issue is a content dispute and not obvious vandalism or trolling, I do not think that admins should block (although protection is fine). I just don't want the phrase "even if they have been editing the article themselves" to apply to cases of blocking users over content disputes.
Perhaps rewording to this text is acceptable: Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection, even if they have been editing the article themselves, and blocks. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocks should be on the menu in these circumstances. It doesn't matter who performs the block. A typical situation would be an editor who persistently reproduces disputed content on the same or a different wiki page. The administrators most likely to be on top of the situation are those who have been editing the article to remove the material. Administrators who abuse this provision can be taken to arbitration and may lose their sysop bits, and that's sufficient deterrent. --Tony Sidaway 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't, because very few people are willing to do that. -Amarkov moo! 18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The administrator editing the page may be on top of the situation, but it takes less than 5 minutes to get someone else's attention: post at AIV, post ANI, post AN, post on a talk page, e-mail someone. Again, I'm not objecting to temporary protections of the page, but I believe blocking to gain advantage in what may be a legitimate content dispute should not be encouraged. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
When removing bad information, the last thing you want to do is post to all the places the trolls watch. In the case of a content dispute over this policy, those querying the information must have an advantage. That is precisely what this policy is about. --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Temporary full protection of the page is an advantage. Throwing in the right to block at will during a content dispute involving any BLP content is much more than that. Also, if the disputed content is of such a nature that the admin is unwilling to risk publicising it even one bit by posting at ANI or elsewhere (there's still the option of e-mail), then it's almost surely a case of obvious vandalism and/or trolling (in which case WP:BLOCK takes over) rather than a potentially legitimate content dispute. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You're focusing on "advantage" here, but the important thing is to stop this policy being violated. Protecting a page won't stop an editor who is intent on publishing the disputed material; typically he'll publish it on the talk page or copy it to his own userspace. In the extreme case, you have to block the editor and protect his talk page. This is true even if the editor in question obviously isn't a troll or a vandal. This is true, even if there is clearly a legitimate content dispute. I'm sorry I have to spell it out hereL this policy overrides everything. We don't put unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material anywhere on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the policy. I agree with the policy and support implementation of the policy, via blocks if necessary. My concern lies in the interpretation of policy. A single admin can misinterpret, overinterpret, and/or underinterpret the policy, especially when it comes to disputes they're involved in. There is no harm to be had from requesting a second pair of eyes. It only takes a few minutes, but such a precautionary measure can prevent (deliberate or accidental) misuse or abuse of admin tools. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"contentious"

Somehow during the editing of this page a few days ago, an IP removed contentious from the opening section [15], which changes the meaning and makes the opening inconsistent with the detailed formulation below. I've re-inserted this. semper fictilis 16:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Categories

The same issues arise with lists, which are not mentioned at the moment. It would be easy to change the section to WP:BLP#Categories and lists and tweak the wording. Tyrenius 14:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition for a new section to follow WP:BLP#Categories:

===Lists===
Similar care should be applied when including people in lists. The same criteria apply as in categories for religious beliefs and sexual preference.

Tyrenius 16:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the arbcom to extend the language to include any article content that uses wikipedia's voice regarding religion and sexual orientation, making it subject to the same criteria. I brought it up there during a pending case, but we can do the same thing here by consensus. - Crockspot 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom does not and should not dictate policy or consensus; editors do. I have changed the section to WP:BLP#Categories and lists and have added Tyrenius' sentence above. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a case dealing with religious info, and I though it was an appropriate request to make of them, and I do believe that they have the authority to do so. I don't think I'm asking for anything new, just a clarification of what the reasoning behind the category rules is. When we apply a category, we are using Wikipedia's unattributed editorial voice to say something about a subject. So it stands to reason that a special rule about the application of a category would logically extend to any content that uses Wikipedia's unattributed editorial voice. So to apply a "Gay" category to an article is the equivalent of putting "So and so is gay" into the article, without sourcing it. It would make sense that the same criteria which applies to sexual pref. and religious cats would also apply to making unattributed statements to the same effect in the article. But since the rules don't actually state that, you would not believe how many editors would (and do) argue that inserting the same statement is fine, because BLP only treats categories as requiring the two criteria. What I want is an additional statement, similar to the thing about lists, that says you have to use the same criteria if Wikipedia's unattributed voice is going to be used to make a similar statement as a category would imply. Are you following, or did I totally confuse everyone? - Crockspot 18:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. I understand what you're saying and agree with it (btw, I added the part about lists). I just don't believe it is the role of ArbCom to make such clarifications. I would rather they just stick to evaluating user's actions in light of consensus-determined rules instead of themselves endorsing or imposing policies and guidelines. In effect, I believe members of ArbCom should have no authority over the content of policies, except as regular editors. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Although it's obvious that editors decide what goes concerning policies, I'm a little troubled that such a large change can be added nonchalantly. I understand the concept of being bold, but this is policy, not an article on starfish, so a little more care should be taken when adding or taking away phrases or concepts that can affect thousands of articles drastically. Still, I'm not entirely opposed to this change, but I think it is inherently problematic- lists and categories are different, and they have different sets of limitations. Applying similar standards between both of them ignores these differences and, essentially, neuters the usefulness of many lists, which have much, much greater flexibility in transmitting information, and can offer detailed descriptions and second opinions. Categories, which live at the bottom of pages and define concepts in a mere word or few, are extremely limited, and cannot be explained in detail. Therefore, I don't believe that this change is very well thought-out.--C.Logan 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I chose the wording to cater for the difference, as in "similar care", as opposed to " lists are exactly the same". Tyrenius 17:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Then I may be inclined to agree. However, BLP already requires very reliable sources for any contentious statements (which is how religious or sexuality terms should probably be seen), so the addition here seems a little redundant.--C.Logan 18:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't view my edit as a change to the policy. BLP applies to all biographical (of living persons) content, irrespective of where it is located (with an exception for talk pages and user pages). The idea that lists of people should have well-defined and monitored inclusion criteria is an extension of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (and also expressed in the list guideline.
As for extending the category requirements for religious belief and sexual preference to lists, I think that was also previously covered. Point 1 (public self-identification) is required in order for content to be verifiable. The only issue may be with point 2 (relevance), in that lists (unlike categories) can provide supplementary context that may justify inclusion. I will modify the sentence shortly. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
What is meant by public self-identification, though? What if there's an instance where one denies their previous religious commitments? This is where secondary sources really play into the equation and we're really not supposed to interpret primary source information anyways -- reliable secondary sources are. Drumpler 18:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little more concerned with how one might define 'self-identification'. Some individuals (as I have seen) expect a subject to say, explicitly, "I am X", but I think that this is a flawed expectation. An individual can essentially be something in particular, be entirely involved with it, and spend a good deal discussing matters which are related to it, but without the "I am" statement, couldn't be categorized as such. This, to me, shows a flaw in the requirement. Please tell me that the intended term of self-identification is not as restrictive as some individuals may seem to believe. I can somewhat understand this requirement, even as restrictive as it may be, for Categories, but not for lists. Can anyone clarify the boundaries of "self-identification"?--C.Logan 18:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally not view it to be so restrictive. If the BBC (a reliable source) classifies someone as a Sunni, for instance, that's good enough for me. If you think the current wording does not reflect that idea, please change it as appropriate. I will leave the issue of claryfing the boundaries of self-identification to someone else as I do not work all that much with lists of living people. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm satisfied with that kind of thing as well, but I think that the term "self-identification" would lead many people to require that the person give a statement from their own mouths along the lines of "I am X". Such a requirement is very problematic, but I've seen a few editors argue for this interpretation of things. As far as I'm concerned, one could argue that the claim of the BBC that an individual is a Sunni could be called an identification on the part of the BBC, not a self-identification. Bear in mind that I agree with you on what is considered acceptable, I just don't see how the wording can be reconciled with how you and I see it (and again, with categories I find a strict requirement mostly acceptable, but certainly not in the case of lists).--C.Logan 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with C.Logan. I think the term "self-identification" should be striked out. The current WP:BLP policy, which relies on reputable sources, should be enough. Drumpler 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It needs to be thought through and clarified, but not just struck, until something better is agreed to replace it. I disagree about lists: they present themselves as definitive, so there is no room for uncertainty over inclusion in them. Tyrenius 23:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, where qualifiers exist, they need to be included, otherwise it isn't NPOV anyway. Drumpler 00:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have come across an editor in this manner consistently asserting the "I am X" argument ias a justification to empty the Hindu people categories. I also think that if a reliable source (say Britannica or a mainstream paper) lists them as X religion, then that should be taken as acceptable under WP:V. I think my views are aligned more with Drumpler in this matter. If it is verifiable, it should stay (At least in terms of religion). However Sexuality may be a different matter, as calling someone "gay" is still by and large an epithet. Self-identification for sexuality should be a given, self-identification for religion hinders our ability to categorize.Bakaman 18:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dylan

The case that has brought this up is Bob Dylan on List of notable people who converted to Christianity, currently discussed on User talk:Bus stop. To simplify matters: secondary sources say he converted to Christianity. He denies that he did. Tyrenius 08:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That is the user page of an editor indefinitely blocked for disruption. No policy discussion of any kind should be taking place on that user page, particularly since that page will be deleted if the user remains blocked. --JJay 12:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It is also true that the "he" denying the conversion of Dylan is User:Bus stop, not Bob Dylan himself. Dylan has refused to directly comment on his prior involvement with the Vineyard movement since leaving it. This however does raise what may be one of the more contentious points of involvement here. This change is intended to deal primarily with sexual and religious content. How would this policy apply in the event of an act of a sexual and/or religious nature which is apparently attested to by the subject in private, such that it appears in numerous contemporary sources, and even publicly demonstrated, if not directly commented upon, by the subject himself at the time, only to change later, with the subject refusing to comment on the accuracy of prior statements. So, for instance, X is widely reported as having a sexual relationship with Y, and is even seen in public in "romantic" behavior with Y, but makes no clear, definitive, unambiguous statements at the time to the press, although the statements he does make are fairly obviously substantiating the claim. Then, later, for whatever reason, that contact of whatever kind it was ends, and the subject continues to refuse to address the matter in any clear and definitive way. A similar situation, but on a religious rather than sexual level, is the cause of the Dylan controversy. If this change is to be made, then I think that addressing directly these sorts of situations, which are the problematic ones, might be useful, as it is these kinds of situations where the controversy arises. John Carter 13:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is a relevant quote about Dylan: "By being immersed in water, Bob became, in common parlance, a born-again Christian, though he would later shrink from the term, claiming he had never used it." What he did say was that he had "a born again experience". Dylan certainly talked about Christ and was apparently baptised, but there do not seem to be any occasions when he referred to himself as a Christian, or that he considered himself a convert to Christianity. In fact he condemned religion as such: see here. The question is then whether it is right to list him with converts to a religion. Tyrenius 13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no substitute for reasonable knowlesgeable editors making evidence-based edits. Personally, I find [16]"Bob did go through our school of discipleship. He spent four months every day in a class room and it was out of that came the albums of 'Saved' and 'Slow Train Coming.'" [17]"Saved" [18]"There's only one road and it leads to Calvary." to be convincing. WAS 4.250 13:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be conjectural interpretation. Tyrenius 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I would only add the qualifier that he denied being a "Born-again Christian", not a Christian per se. Born again Christian has a generally fairly definite popular meaning, and it isn't entirely clear whether the group he was involved in is one which ever describes itself as such. John Carter 13:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
He apparently used the term "born-again experience" and did not deny using that expression. The expression he denied was "born-again Christian" and there is no evidence that he did use it. The difference between the two is the "Christian" bit. Tyrenius 13:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
And the fact that Born again Christian, as per our page on the subject, has a specific meaning within the Christian community, such that members of only a comparatively small number of Christian groups ever directly refer to themselves as such, and members of other denominations actively shrink from ever using that phrase to describe themselves. John Carter 13:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
But other denominations refer to themselves as "Christians" and there is no evidence Dylan ever did. He is on record as accepting Christ, and condemning religion. The list in question is not of people who accepted Christ, but people who accepted the Christian religion. There can be a difference. Bottom line is that there is an amount of uncertainty here. If we go by secondary sources, then the case for inclusion is clear. If we require self-identification, then an area of doubt vetoes inclusion. Per BLP the default is to omit. Tyrenius 14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
To an extent, I agree with the above. However, the group with which he actively chose to involve himself, and seems to have baptized him, is clearly and explicitly self-described as "Christian". To an extent, I see part of the problem here is once again potentially a refusal to use a politically-loaded word. Also, the word "self-identification" is unfortunately never clearly defined to date, and we can only be certain that he has never used the word in public statements to describe himself, not that he has never used the word at all. I think our disagreement to date is that you, based on my own opinion, seem to be using a more restrictive definition of "self-identification" than I do. I haven't ever actually seen a clear definition of the term, and thus can't be sure if it explicitly refers only to "public statements" or whether private statements are acceptable as well. And, again, this situation seems to have parallels with other potential situations where an individual might hesitate to use the "g-word" (for gay), or similar qualms which may be based more on possible objections to using specific words rather than to the substance of the statements. I think that situations like this kind are probably the most contentious, both in terms of sexuality and religion, and am not sure exactly how the policy should be written to deal with these cases where people refuse to use specific, clear phrasing. John Carter 14:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Each case has to be weighed on its merits. As Dylan publicly espoused Christ, reports in reliable sources of private conversations where he described himself as Christian, would not seem to be problematic. There are reports of private conversations with his Christian companions/mentors, but even they do not state that he described himself thus. The only evidence as regards to any formal affiliation with Christianity as a religion is his rejection of it. The activities that he undertook are ones that would normally be done by someone who would indeed think of themselves as a Christian, and in the enthusiasm of revelation would proclaim that. The fact that Dylan didn't is telling. A possible solution is that the list has a separate section "Acceptance of Christ" or some such, which would include those people who had accepted Christ but did not necessarily accept Christianity as a religion. Tyrenius 14:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Without meaning to get too needlessly obsessed on details, I don't see the difference between "accepting Christ" (which presumably is a shorter form of something like "accepting Christ as your personal lord and saviour", which seems to be the more standard complete phrasing), and being a Christian. The same problem arises in sexuality categories. Would we allow someone who has been found in court to have been guilty of repeated contact with minors to be called a "pedarast" or something similar if he himself never used the term, instead choosing something much more vague or convoluted? I acknowledge in this case the vagueness of the phrase "accepting Christ", as he doesn't say what he accepted Christ as (maybe his gardener?). Also, I wonder if there is no definition of "self-identification", as there doesn't seem to be, if maybe the phrasing of that clause could be changed to something more clear, or if a separate section somewhere on the meaning of "self-identification" could be created. John Carter 15:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
And again, accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, as popularly mocked as that phrasing has become, is really what makes you a "Christian", in any case. You cannot operate with such a narrow definition of "Christianity" or "religion", as Christianity is so diverse that there is every possible range of belief found within its thousands of denominations and sub-denominations. Again, we need to keep in mind that accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour makes you his follower, and this in turn makes you a "Christian", a follower of the Christ. The List of notable people who converted to Christianity does not add "the religion of" into that title. Christianity is a religion for some, and may be described as a "philosophy", a "relationship", a "way of life", etc. by others. Again, considering these alternate phrasings, we should remember what defines "religion":
re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Again, keeping all these things in mind, we should not be interpreting the utterances of the individual in question. Primary sources breed OR interpretations. As you can see, there are two interpretations of a single phrase being exhibited here, though I would put all my eggs into one of those baskets. How do the sources treat the phrasing? We should keep the context of the Secondary sources in mind. Sounes argues for Dylan's continued Christianity even during the periods when rumors had arisen of a return to Judaism, so I wouldn't say that Sounes denies that Dylan was a Christian at one point. Considering that he, and the biographers which agree on this point, are much more well-versed in the subject than any of us are, and have done far more research and have actually spoken extensively on this subject with individuals who are familiar with Dylan, it would be reasonable to trust their presentation over any editor's. Again, we should also keep in mind when scrutinizing the text that it is but one presentation, and certain information which would be very useful for us was not included because of seeming superfluousness, lack of space or editorial issues, and the lack of necessity for certain concepts which are basic assumptions (i.e., Sounes may assume that we don't need a lot of convincing, so he presents a milder case than possible, and ignores the presentation of facts which would be vital to us discussioneers and nitpickers). As it is, however, the sources argue towards one point: Dylan was a Christian, but it's not sure where he stands nowadays.--C.Logan 16:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Reiteration

The addition has now been removed.[19] I am again proposing the addition at the end of WP:BLP#Categories:

Similar care should be applied when including people in lists. The same criteria apply as in categories for religious beliefs and sexual preference.

Lists are not the same as articles. They are more akin to categories and need certainty for inclusion. Tyrenius 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • No, it's a bad idea that does not fit with the special case of categories that are added without explanation to articles. Lists are comparable to articles. The applicable policies are WP:V and WP:RS. There is no reason to single out lists as opposed to other articles (and there was no reason for a new thread on this subject). --JJay 15:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see an explanation per se. Lists are comparable to articles in that they are articles, but inclusion is still a statement in Wikipedia's voice. You haven't actually responded to the concerns with that aspect raised above. Hornplease 01:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material

I've restored that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material should be removed. Michael changed it to "unsourceable" i.e. OR. But it's not only OR that should be removed, but anything that is contentious and unsourced. If people want to find a reliable source, that's fine, of course, and then it won't be unsourced or poorly sourced, and this provision won't apply. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I didn't notice that. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Huh! I missed that too. It shouldn't matter whether derogatory material is sourceable or not; if it's unsourced, it can be removed without discussion. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The change was not meant to alter the meaning, and it specifically talked about stuff not belonging if the sources aren't appropriate or it's conjecture based on sources. The point, as I think The Cunctator wanted to emphasize, is that the problem is fix-or-remove, not just remove. In what way is the new version inadequate? I disagree with the characterization of the change and would like to know where it comes from. --Michael Snow 18:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to emphasize "fix or delete" why not complete the thought with "and should not be restored unless reliable sources are found and cited" or words to that effect. The "don't restore" could stand to be emphasised too... WilyD 18:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Restoring the material is subject to the same policies as adding it in the first place. The focus of the section is on dealing with material that's already there but not in compliance with policy. --Michael Snow 18:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this makes clear the "fixing in an option" point. WilyD 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
In all honesty, Michael, I think the first thing to do is remove. "Fix or remove" is fine too, but we don't need to reword our policies to say it's okay to source a poorly sourced statement if you happen to have a source. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The concern, I think, is that the option of fixing is not even being considered. I agree that removing is better than waiting around for a fix, which is why I added the comment that tags like {{unreferenced}} aren't appropriate. --Michael Snow 18:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The option of fixing is implicit in Wikipedia's status as a wiki. This policy does not say and has never said, nor is it capable of being read as saying, that providing a reliable source for an unsourced statement is forbidden. That would be very silly. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not claiming the policy says any such thing, the issue is whether people carrying out the policy are adequately considering the option. Omitting it from discussion leaves an emphasis, as The Cunctator puts it, "that encourages non-collaborative behavior and rewards assumptions of bad faith." --Michael Snow 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I share Michael's concern, though I don't wholly agree with the text of his changes. The option of fixing may be "implicit", but there's no harm to making it explicit. The policy, as worded, seems to actively discourage any action except removal. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As I asked above (and haven't received much of an answer yet), I would love to hear in what way the text of my changes could be improved. --Michael Snow 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I mainly disagree with the second paragraph as I think it places too much emphasis on potential attributability as opposed to present source status. Specifically, I do not agree with the wording of this sentence: When in doubt, derogatory material that is not properly sourceable should be removed. First, I believe "derogatory" should be changed to "contentious". Second, I think "sourceable" should be changed to "sourced". I hope that clarifies my comment. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps a lot. I hadn't done much with The Cunctator's second paragraph before now, but on review I'm sure it can be tightened up and improved further. I definitely agree with the second point, the first is perhaps less critical but "contentious" is a good default adjective throughout. --Michael Snow 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Good catch, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this new wording. It contradicts the principle (and the direction of Jimbo, and several other polidies, see WP:V#Burden of evidence) that the responsibility of sourcing contentious material lies squarely on the shoulders of the editor wishing to include. This opens yet another loophole for editors who will put crap into articles, and demand that others try to source them. It completely undermines the enforcement of this policy, and needs to be changed back immediately. - Crockspot 15:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with you. It makes a quantum leap that utterly changes the burden of proof. Checking whether something is verifiable ought to be an easy matter (click on the reference and go to the source; no reference, remove). The replacement wording puts up a barrier of inertia (can I be bothered to search myself? will I look a fool? etc) which ought not to be there. There is already a gulf beteen the word for verifiability and the reality: this will make it worse. --ROGER TALK 16:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about removal of a National Enquirer article

There's been an ongoing discussion for some time now in Talk:George W. Bush substance abuse controversy regarding the question of whether to include a mention of an article that appeared in the National Enquirer, which cited unidentified "family sources" as saying that Bush had been drinking in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. After being one of those who originally raised the question of whether a mention of the item belongs in the Wikipedia article, I ended up coming to the conclusion that it probably does. Another editor has recently been asserting that it doesn't, and has removed it, citing WP:BLP. I think this might constitute an interesting edge case, in the sense that if we're going to have an article on this topic at all, a neutrally-presented mention of the Enquirer article might qualify for inclusion, despite the dictates of WP:BLP. The other editor has characterized it as much more cut-and-dried, asserting that WP:BLP clearly doesn't allow for mentioning the Enquirer article.

I wanted to take a step back from the issue, so I haven't continued the low-grade revert conflict that we'd fallen into. But I'm concerned that in its current state the article might not be doing justice to the topic, or to the requirements of NPOV, and I would feel better if some folks with a background in WP:BLP could take a look at the question. Thanks. -- John Callender 05:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Was the National Enquirer the only source reporting on these unidentified "family sources"? If that is the case, I would argue for the exercise of caution in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
After reading the article, it seems to me to be a bad case of WP:POVFORK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Should be merged back into the main article. Carcharoth 12:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The National Enquirer is not a reliable source. I've heard arguments that suggest otherwise here at Wikipedia, but I disagree. The National Enquirer is a tabloid; it is not a reliable source, and to repeat anything the Enquirer said is to toss out any standard of reliability. Tabloid crap doesn't belong in Wikipedia. (And no, I'm not a Republican or a Bush supporter). -Jmh123 15:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. By "merge back into the main article", I meant that the "substance abuse controversy" shouldn't have been allowed to grow to the extent where it needed its own article. Part of the merging would involve editing the content right down until only a paragraph appears in the main article. The National Enquirer stuff would be one of the first things to go. Carcharoth 15:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing as an alternative to removal

Crockspot,

I don't object to the restoration of the original text. However, I can't understand why you would revert this change.

In your edit summary you wrote:

It's a given that an editor can always source, it doesn't need spelling out here.

Well, I beg to differ. The policy, as currently worded, makes no mention of adding sources. It gives a very clear prescription: if you see unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, remove it. No questions asked. No extra clarifications. The extra 5 words of "corroborate with proper sources or" adds that needed clarification. You think it's not needed; others think it is. Given that all that's involved is an extra 5 words, I think we can choose to err on the side of clarity.

On my talk page you wrote:

At least three editors (myself, User:Roger Davies, and User:Crum375, have registered strong objection in the past few hours to the change you want to make. You need to build consensus further before making a change to a core policy. - Crockspot 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. Roger Davies and Crum375 objected to the revised text added by Michael Snow, which has nothing to do with my edit. In addition, you noted in your edit summary that "it's a given that an editor can always source", yet also call my edit "a change to a core policy". Well, your edit summary was more accurate: it's a clarification, not a change. Improvement has always been an alternative to removal, but it is not currently mentioned for whatever reason.

To conclude: It is strange to the point of being ridiculous that a policy doesn't mention fixing content as a way of solving a content problem. If, despite this explanation, you still object to the change, please explain why. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We need to clearly state that poorly sourced material in BLP cases must be removed on sight. That a source can be added is well known, but we shouldn't mention it here, as any additional language will dilute the message and may serve as an excuse to delay the immediate removal, which is mandatory. If someone believes there are good sources, they can be added at any time. Crum375 19:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. The presence of poorly sourced material in BLPs should be corrected on sight. Removal is a form of correction, but not the only form. There is no dilution of that message to be had from the addition of those 5 words. If your concern is misinterpretation and delayed removal, I would fully support adding the following sentence (or something like it): Simply tagging content for improvement is not enough.
You wrote: "that a source can be added is well known". It may be well known to you and me, but will new users be aware of that? Of course not! They'll interpret the policy as it is written: that the only appropriate action is removal. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. The poorly sourced material must be removed on sight. Then, if there are sources found, they can be added. There have been cases where poorly sourced material was left in, and this was defended by editors saying they were "in the process" of getting the sources. This is not acceptable - we first remove the poorly sourced material, and only then, if possible, find sources. Any verbiage about finding sources will dilute the very clear message about immediate removal on sight. Crum375 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I have responded below. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy with the extra text you propose if it came after removal - "Alternatively, you can corrobate it with proper sources." - as this would clarify beyond doubt that it's not a condition that you attempt to corroborate before removal. (Corroboration can take ages.) --ROGER TALK 19:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. It doesn't really matter to me where the option of corroboration is noted as long as it's noted. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
How about at end of the first paragraph, we add: If an editor chooses to attempt to corroborate poorly sourced or unsourced material, the material should still be removed from the article pending a search for reliable sources. - Crockspot 20:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hah ... it seems our proposals are quite similar. To be completely honest, however, I slight prefer the version below because it's shorter, more direct, and covers a broader range of cases. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have often removed unsourced material, found a source, then added the material back in later. I have even sourced something without the removal first. Nothing in the policy has ever discouraged me from doing so. The burden on all editors is to remove poorly sourced or unsourced material. The burden to find a source rests only on those editors who wish to include the material. This is the law from Jimbo. Technically, the material should be removed even while you are doing a google search. None of our "viewers" should be reading that material while there is not a source cited, even for a minute. There are editors who would twist your change to their POV advantage, trust me. I already put in a lot of time RC and BLP patrolling, and I shouldn't feel required to bear another burden. As I said, nothing in the current policy has ever discouraged me from finding sources. Weakening the wording of this policy, even just a little bit, will wreak havoc on the enforcement of the spirit of this policy. - Crockspot 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see that we might want to give emphasis to removal over corroboration. And I can see that we might want to promote the principle of "remove first, corroborate (if possible) later". However, I don't think those two principles require us to forgo any mention of corroboration (even if it occurs after removal). So, in that spirit, I offer this revised wording (the new sentence is bolded):

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. Content may be re-added when it is corroborated by reliable sources. These principles apply ...

I was bold and rolled my suggestion above in before I saw this one, but either works for me. - Crockspot 20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
(EC) OK, I think we can work off of this. Slight changes in placement, wording, and so on can still be made, but I think we've agreed on the principle that the option of corroboration should not be noted in a way that weakens the wording of the policy or suggests that removal may be delayed. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom harrison made my statement more concise, and I moved it to the position in the paragraph of your wording, works better there I think. Can we consider this a resolution? - Crockspot 20:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops ... I didn't quite see that and replaced it with the "Content may be re-inserted" version. I think the two versions are quite similar and have only a slight preference for this version due to its broader scope. That phrasing disallows reintroduction of unsourced and contentious material in all cases as opposed to just when an editor "intends to find sources". Black Falcon (Talk) 20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Crum makes a good point, sourcing is only one issue. There are other considerations, like undue weight and relevance to consider. - Crockspot 20:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the change. I initially thought of changing "conforms to this policy" to "conforms to this and other policies", but then realised that this policy essentially derives from and incorporates the other policies and guidelines (NPOV, NOR, V, and RS). Black Falcon (Talk) 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, BLP is a policy, and as such it does not derive from RS, which is a guideline. Crum375 21:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
BF, BLP originally derived from NPOV, NOR, and V (never RS), but now there are many more issues covered here than there, so "conforms to this policy" would be correct. I think it's a little strange to add that once material conforms to the policy, it can be restored, because that's obviously true, but no matter I suppose. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was referring more to NPOV, NOR, and V. In truth, I really don't consider RS separate from V and, were it not for the fact that their separation makes referencing their different components easier, would not oppose their merger. Also, though it may seem odd to note something as obvious as the fact that BLP-compliant content can be re-inserted, it is probably no more odd than providing guidance on how to fix a sourcing problem without mentioning the option of adding a source. In any case "conforms to this policy" is undoubtedly the best wording since sourcing is often not the only issue. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Harm is global

I think the BLP guidelines ought to spell out that they apply globally. In my wikignoming activities, I often see casual accusations of involvement in terrorism, drug-smuggling, or opposition politics, made without any proper source at all. Wikipedia is available globally, perhaps even to secret policemen and their death squads. Casual accusations of this kind - and false positives, where information about several people is accidentally conflated into a single article - can lead to beatings, imprisonment, torture or death. How do we deal with this? --ROGER TALK 08:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • If it's unsourced, remove it. I think this is bolded in the introduction. Cheers, WilyD 13:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Some new topics

I've been writing a fair bit on these issues over at an ongoing deletion discussion, and it was mentioned over there that some of the points raised should be recorded and discussed here, so that is what I am doing. I'm also commenting briefly on some other points from the last few talk pages sections above.

  • Should this policy be applied as a last resort? ie. Should we encourage editors and admins to try editing articles and referring to other polices instead of, or as well as this one, before going for the step of deletion? What I fear is that excessive use of this policy will lead to it being watered down and not being seen as the "stop and think" flag it really should be.
  • Crime articles - should there not be a section explaining how in cases of articles about crimes where suspects are awaiting trial, we should be careful because of sub judice considerations? Even if something is widely reported in newspapers, there are sometimes appeals by the police and others to avoid repeating the reports, or publishing speculations, because of concerns that this may unduly influence a jury that has to try the case.
  • There should be a strong warning for editors to judge the suitability of using news reports (newspapers, news websites, TV news) as sources. I feel that: "Wikipedia, by using [news] coverage as its "notable sources" is failing to provide encyclopedic coverage and is looking at living people through the distorting lens of media coverage.".
  • Notability guidelines should not trump BLP consideration: "In other words, if these people pass the notability requirements, don't think "oh, that's OK then", but stop and think "is this really the sort of material that Wikipedia is proud to be producing"."
  • Private individuals. Different countries have different privacy laws. "Are [we] sure [we] understand what is meant by "private individual"? It does not mean "someone who has never received media attention". It is indeed possible for private individuals to get media attention, in this case because they are the children of high-profile politicians. You or I could equally get media attention if we were involved in an incident that received a lot of media coverage, or if we started dating a celebrity. However, we would still be entitled to a degree of privacy. It is the very essence of the biographies of living people policy that people who are thrust into the limelight due to birth, or some one-off incident, should not be over-exposed on Wikipedia because we have the manpower to record minutiae from newspapers and incorporate it into what is supposed to be an encylopedia. There does come a point when the line is crossed, and the person becomes a celebrity or famous person in their own right. Princess Diana crossed that line at some point (though she was already notable due to being a member of the British aristocracy). At what point did Kate Middleton cross that line? In these two cases [Al Gore III and Noelle Bush], the coverage is insufficient to justify an article. Princess Diana eventually got to the point where people were writing biographies about her. Kate Middleton is probably best covered as a section at Prince William. The section exists, but she has her own article as well. The insatiable appetite people have for information can be a double-edged sword sometimes."
  • Getting background information on people. This is a good use of Wikipedia, but this shouldn't be used as an excuse to put everything about someone in an article. If we have an article, then yes, most things that have been covered should be mentioned (always remembering 'due weight'), but if we don't have enough information to write a proper biography of a living person (historical people are different), then the existing facts (if needed) should be incorporated elsewhere. We shouldn't be afraid to say to people "You want to find out about some arrest that happened to this child of a politician? The tabloids are that way."
  • Recognize the different situation with regards to sources for historical people (by which I mean those that lived before the 20th century when there were less sources reporting on people and less of those sources have survived). Some of these have incomplete biographies, but that is due to lack of sources, rather than private living individuals not being reported on or not publicizing their information.
  • The problems with writing about living people: "Do [we] think it is OK to build incomplete (and impossible to complete) articles on a living person from scraps of factual information in various news sources, rather than to comprehensively cover the thoughtful, critical analysis of a person's life, published by independent commentators in reliable sources? Writing about a person is a complicated business. If it is left to "anyone can edit", then a bias towards the immediately available sources, such as news reports, appears. News reports are not intended to be the basis on which to write about a person's life. Any reputable biographer will never rely totally on news stories, and indeed will often avoid them and use the primary material he is being paid to find. News stories may be a starting point, but they should not be the end product. Wikipedians cannot carry out original research, but in the cases of living people, often the only available sources to expand on the bare essentials are news reports. Judging how to present all the material is a form of original research, in my view - it is extremely difficult to give things their due weight, and getting that right often needs further research, something Wikipedians often cannot do. The more considered analysis often has not been published yet, and in some cases only appears after the subject has died, or even years after the subject has died. Until that point, Wikipedia articles can only be collections of reported facts and news. When there is widespread coverage and lots of available information, the result can be OK, though even there, as in Jake Gyllenhaal (a featured biographical article), the article can feel strange in places (compare to something like Laurence Olivier, where it is possible to step back and put the life in context, something that is not possible with a living person). But when there is a lack of information, the result is often horribly imbalanced, as in these two cases."
  • Illustrating the point with a disclaimer: "if you have an article about a living person, based entirely on news stories and where there is no true biographical coverage (by which I mean an attempt to put the events of a person's life in context, rather than just merely report the facts), then we should be honest and put a disclaimer saying "this article has been patched together from lots of news stories because no true biography has been written yet - so this article might not be a very balanced view of this person"."
  • Case study (the family of Jeb Bush): "I've prepared a new section at Jeb Bush#Family to which Noelle Bush can be redirected (following the decision here). I've already redirected Jeb Bush, Jr. there, but I've left George P. Bush (the eldest son) as a separate article, as he has been politically active (speaking at the age of 12 at the Republican National Convention, and has spoken on Hispanic issues and campaigned during two presidential elections."

All quotes by User:Carcharoth and taken from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III and Noelle Bush. Please say if you object to or agree with any of the above. Thanks. Carcharoth 10:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts:
  • BLP and deletion – At heart, this policy does not conflict with other policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV unless it is being overinterpreted. I think that the wording of the BLP policy, focusing so heavily on removal and very little on improvement, has created the impression that BLP = deletion. If an article has any real or potential BLP concerns, deletion isn't always necessary and shouldn't be the first resort except for CSD G10 attack pages. So, yes, I think we should consider (though not always pursue)improvement before deletion.
  • Crime articles – I do not think such a section is necessary and feel that consideration for jury influence is covered by our current consideration for the privacy of the subject. Speculation has no place in BLPs (per this policy and WP:V) and excessively (defined differently in different cases) detailed coverage of crimes falls under the "undue weight" provision of NPOV.
  • Use of news reports – I do not think such a warning is necessary. In and of themselves, news reports are acceptable sources. It is how they are used that matters. WP:NOT#NEWS and the "not a tabloid" provision of this policy cover the appropriate use of news sources in BLPs.
  • Notability and BLP – Since BLP is effectively based in NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability, articles that violate BLP are likely to violate those two as well. Since "BLP consideration" is such a vague term, I really cannot comment further. If most everyone agrees there is a BLP problem, then BLP obviously trumps notability. If there is significant disagreement, then additional consideration is required. All that said, I think "is this really the sort of material that Wikipedia is proud to be producing" is not a good inclusion/exclusion standard.
  • Private individuals – From a legal standpoint, we are required only to follow U.S. and Florida State privacy laws (AFAIK). From an editorial standpoint, the laws of different countries shouldn't influence our decisions too much; privacy is contingent on notability, which is contingent on the amount of reliable coverage that is available.
  • Background information – I think operating on the basis of a dichotomy between "complete biography" and "no biography" is not productive. A biographical article for a notable person may be appropriate even when a complete biography is not or does not seem possible. That does not mean that every available detail about that person should be stuffed in the article to try to make it more complete. As a sidenote, I think that actively pursuing the deletion of incomplete biographical stubs for that reason alone encourages this kind of artificial bloating. That said, if an appropriate merge target exists (as in the case of children of notable people), then a properly performed merge may be the best outcome.
  • Historical people – I agree, with two comments. First, historical people are not covered under BLP. Second, I think this should also extend to notable people who were born or live outside of the United States. There is generally little information available about them, so amassing a complete biography that includes details about childhood, education, employment, marriage, and retirement is generally not possible.
  • Incomplete biographies – I think I've basically addressed this in the two points above. We should not create a black-and-white world where complete=good and incomplete=evil. There's nothing wrong with an article of the type: "So-and-so is a member of parliament in India. They've accomplished or are involved in ... ." This kind of article provides biographical information that is relevant to the person's achievements. It should not be lumped together with 'stalkerish' or tabloid articles that are focused solely on one news story or blunder. There is a difference between incomplete but notable coverage and incomplete and insignificant coverage.
  • Disclaimer – All articles (biographical and otherwise) are patched together from various news and other sources. There is no need for such a disclaimer.
  • Case study – I fully support your decision to redirect Jeb Bush, Jr. and would not oppose a similar redirect of Noelle Bush.
Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 15:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
First, thanks for your detailed responses, it is very gratifying to get this level of feedback. I won't respond to every response, as we are in agreement on several points. I just want to clarify some of the points raised. I will use the titles you gave each point.
  • Crime articles – You said: "I do not think such a section is necessary and feel that consideration for jury influence is covered by our current consideration for the privacy of the subject." - can you point where the need to avoid covering (or be sensitive about) sub judice matters is covered at all in Wikipedia policies?
  • Use of news reports - my comments were directed particularly at biographical articles about living people, not at articles in general. The writing of biographical articles about living people requires good judgment and sensitivity. The potential pitfalls should, in my opinion, be highlighted, and the reasons for wariness be explained. There is mention of "tabloids and scandal sheets" without really explaining what is meant by this. There is also a lack of recognition of the fact that even reputable news sources can be misused by Wikipedia editors. The quality of the content should come before the quality of the source. Simply saying "but this has been reported by a reliable source" is not enough. The first consideration should be "do we need and do we even want to include this material?" Only then should the search for a reliable source start. This is similar to my next point.
  • Notability and BLP - I should have phrased the "proud of" bit better. What I meant to say was that, similar to the point above about reliable source, ie. the decision-making process shouldn't be "it's a reliable source; it's a notable person; this means it is OK to include this information", the first (and often hardest) question should be "is this suitable?" Only then should questions of notability and reliable sources be considered.
  • Private individuals - can someone clarify (a) how US and Florida privacy laws work and (b) ethically what standards people think should apply? The "some detail of this person's life was published in a reliable source so the person is now public" mindset is not working.
  • Incomplete biographies - your point about "incomplete but notable coverage and incomplete and insignificant coverage" is good. That all ties back to NPOV. For a stub, the insignificant details are not needed, but the most important details are needed. Who they are, what they are, where they are, when they were. After that, the bits that need expansion are the core details of their notable achievements, not the insignificant stuff used to fill newspapers.
  • Disclaimer - again, this was meant to focus solely on biographies of living people. The aggregation of information in other types of articles is a good way to accumulate information (if not necessarily a good way to write an article), but it is peculiarly unsuited to writing a BLP. The key points I was making is that in many cases "no true biography has been written yet", and that professional biographers would not write biographies of a living person this way. In essence, unless a biography has been published that can be used to guide the structure of a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia articles are only really a guide to whichever living person the article is about. Solely using news stories, and scraps of information, to write a BLP about Person A is nothing more than Person A (summary of media coverage), rather than a biography. I sometimes see claims for featured biographies of living people (where there is no published biography) that they are "the best article on Person A on the internet" - which isn't really a good thing, in my opinion. That feels too much like "we've written the first proper biography of this person". That should give pause for thought, for obvious reasons. Wikipedia should follow the trend, not set it.
I hope that made some points clearer. It might be easier to spin some of these points off into separate sections if more discussion is needed. Carcharoth 16:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I was more than happy to respond. Doing so also gave me an opportunity to clarify and develop my own views. In response to your points:
  • Crime articles – There is no provision regarding sub judice matters specifically (as far as I know), but I believe any consideration that is deserved is already provided by the "undue weight" provision of the NPOV policy, the "relevance" provision of this policy, and Wikipedia:Verifiability (along with WP:RS). That is, content that is relevant, does not place undue weight (except as it relates to notability) on any single aspect of the subject's life, and is verified by reliable sources is, for me, "good" (for lack of a better term) enough to allay concerns regarding jury influence. Such content would present only the facts and would not overemphasise any positive or negative aspect of the subject's life or of the trial. In short, I do not think a separate provision for sub judice matters is needed because a well-written article that abides by existing policies should not pose a problem.
  • Use of news reports – I do not object to providing editors with additional guidance on the matter, but only wanted to emphasise that the use of reliable news sources itself should not be discouraged. Rather, the limitations and potential pitfalls of using news sources to write BLPs should be highlighted. I agree that there is a problem when someone wants to include everything ever reported about a living person, but believe that the problem is not rooted in the nature of the source itself (news versus non-news) but rather in the manner in which the source is used (i.e., in the lack of BLP-sensitivity of the editor).
  • Notability and BLP – I suppose we disagree somewhat on this point, though it may just be a matter of wording. I think notability (proven via coverage in reliable sources) is the best indicator of suitability. That a subject meets the relevant notability guideline should be enough to justify inclusion in the absolute majority of cases, but exceptions should be made for cases where there are other concerns that cannot be corrected by editing.
  • Private individuals – I'm not knowledgeable in US and Florida privacy law but think that there's little chance of going wrong if one uses common sense and follows current guidelines. As for your second point, I prefer to avoid mixing policy and personal ethics and think that the provisions of "relevance" and "undue weight" establish an appropriate standard. The mindset you refer to is inappropriate not only from a privacy perspective,but also from an encyclopedic/editorial perspective. Encyclopedia articles provide an overview of their subjects; they do not list every single known detail about them. I think the best counter to the "include all information" mindset is more and more consistent application of the "relevance" and "undue weight" provisions of BLP and NPOV, respectively.
  • Incomplete biographies - I agree. Five sentences about a drunken driving conviction that meets the "relevance" criterion (for whatever reasons) is more appropriate in a medium-length article than a ten-sentence stub. Context matters.
  • Disclaimer - You are correct that a professional biography would not be written this way, but I think the block-by-block construction of an article is inherent to the nature of an open wiki. Given this, I'm not sure about the utility of a disclaimer for the reason outlined in the "No disclaimers in articles" guideline. Specifically, in-article disclaimers are redundant with the general disclaimer that appears on all pages, the difficulty of determining to which articles to apply a disclaimer, and the potential legal liability that comes with inconsistent application of disclaimers.
Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't serious about the disclaimer. Just trying to word one that would make some editors realise why their approach can cause problem. This "piecemeal approach" to writing articles is sometimes a strength of a wiki, but we should be aware that it can also be a weakness.
The subjudice concerns are more about actual legal requirements in some countries not to mention various things about an ongoing trial. See sub judice for details. The US has less stringent requirements than some countries.
I think notability is useful to an extent, but can be abused to call for inclusion of unsuitable material. I agree fully with you that a better understanding and application of key policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:RS, and the "relevance" and "undue weight" clauses, as well as applying common sense, would really help. But it is discouraging when people seem to not understand one or more of these points. Anyway, do you think any of the above discussion could contribute to WP:BLP or any other policies? Carcharoth 19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
If there are legal requirements (in Florida) regarding subjudice concerns, we should of course incorporate them. However, I do not believe that a neutral and verified presentation of facts would conflict with the law.
As for the other point, I think the discussion can inform modifications to the BLP policy, especially with regard to the lack of emphasis on improvement as an alternative to removal (BLP and deletion) and the importance of not placing undue weight on any given aspect of the subject's life, especially when the subject is only marginally notable or notable for a single event (Private individuals, Incomplete biographies) and when no general biographical information is available (Use of news reports). In my opinion, emphasising these points will be more a matter of clarification and provision of additional guidance than of controversial changes to policy. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Section break

"Simply saying 'but this has been reported by a reliable source' is not enough. The first consideration should be 'do we need and do we even want to include this material?' Only then should the search for a reliable source start."

I think this statement by Carcharoth takes Wikipedia into very tricky territory. It starts to put value judgments on factual information. I'm fine with this as a matter of course, guiding individual editors in their efforts to improve articles, but as a matter of policy, it is uninterpretable and impractical: (1) It provides no actual guideline for consensus (Wikipedians may have legitimate disagreements over what material should be "wanted"); (2) it discards WP:NPOV (it is the very definition of NNPOV); (3) it neglects entirely the very clearly stated WP:V which says in plain language that the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability. Not "the threshold for inclusion is an agreement among all editors that such information is wanted, or "good for people to read" or "not harmful". Taking Carcharoth's perspective as an entree to policy should be disturbing to editors who value NPOV and the Internet as the instrument of the free flow of factual, unbiased information, as it opens the door to whitewashing, moralism, and all manner of information-control conspiracy. If a subject is deemed to be notable, then no nontrivial, verifiable information about that subject should be perforce excluded only because one or another editor finds the information disagreeable. Robert K S 15:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the "nontrivial" bit that is the problem here. I am saying that WP:NOT should be applied first, and even if someone is notable and the information is verifiable, it should not necessarily be included. NPOV does not mean "include everything". It means include everything needed to give a balanced article. Trivial information and non-encyclopedic information should be excluded, as merely including them can give undue weight that type of information. The threshold for inclusion is not just verifiability, as WP:NOT clearly states: "merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia". The statement in WP:V refers to things that have passed WP:NOT. Many people seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia should include all information, and they quote Jimbo's statement about the "sum of all human knowledge". Well, WP:NOT quite rightly pours cold water on that idea. Though to clarify somewhat, please remember that the arguments here should primarily apply to articles on living people, not to all articles. As such, Wikipedia editors should not over-emphasize verifiability and notability in BLP articles at the expense of excluding unencyclopedic material from BLPs. Carcharoth 11:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me give some examples of nontrivial biographical data (i.e., notes of import) proper to any good, balanced biography—and, where known and sourceable, improper to omit from any biography:
  • Date and location of birth
  • Identities and occupations of parents/guardians
  • Childhood socioeconomic status, ethnic status if notable (e.g. if an ethnic minority)
  • Childhood hobbies and avocations if related to reason for notability
  • Education highlights (significant institutions attended and degrees attained, or some explanation if education interrupted or no higher education pursued)
  • All notable adult occupations and/or public service offices held
  • Geographical relocations
  • Spouses and liasons of issue, number of children and their years born, their names
  • Arrests and convictions
  • Lawsuits naming the subject as a plaintiff or defendant, or in which the subject appeared as a star witness
  • Inventions, publications, major creations, or other notable creative output
  • Debilitating or mortal illnesses, injuries or health conditions
  • Personal tragedies (e.g., loss of family member, bankruptcy, firing, loss of reputation or social status ("pariah-hood"), etc.)
  • Dates and circumstances of "comebacks", if applicable (entertainers and political figures, especially)
  • Date, place, and cause of death
None of these items is trivial to a biography, even a BLP, if the subject is deemed to be independently notable. I would be happy to debate the relative merits of any of these items. Your position seems to be that certain of these should be omitted in BLPs, especially if not all the others can be included. Robert K S 13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with all those. I think you have misunderstood my position. I wouldn't argue for things to be excluded if not all the others can be included. My position is that I disagree with the excessive detail and undue weight sometimes placed on these aspects of a person's life. Why, for instance, is there a whole article on George W. Bush substance abuse controversy? This sort of thing is what happens when the yardstick for measuring what we cover is how much the modern media covers something. This ends up pandering to the lowest common denominator and "human interest" stories, rather than proper balance and encyclopedic tone. My other concern is that when faced with articles like Al Gore III (where only a few shreds of information are available), the attitude seems to be to keep the article and try and find the missing information to make it balanced. To me, that is invading his privacy, and can also end up being original research. Far better to condense the available material into his father's article. On a more general point, writing a balanced, comprehensive biography is a difficult thing to do. I don't think Wikipedia does it well unless it has a model to follow (eg. a published biography). At the moment, some Wikipedia editors seem to think that writing a biography involves finding everything that has been published about someone (no matter what the source), and throwing it all together to form a "biography". A proper biography takes much more effort than this, and does not involve using tabloid news stories as sources. Can you at least agree with that? Carcharoth 14:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
To put this another way, you say "If a subject is deemed to be notable, then no nontrivial, verifiable information about that subject should be perforce excluded only because one or another editor finds the information disagreeable." - this to me seems to open the doors to including on Wikipedia a mention of every single tabloid story about every politician and celebrity. To my mind, information should be included if it is relevant to what the reader wants to read. Are we catering for readers who want to know about a person's political or showbiz career, or are we catering for the reader who wants to know every last detail about this person's life? If it is relevant to their job, then yes. If not, then no. A brief mention (a sentence or footnote), possibly, but not paragraph after paragraph and whole articles based on tabloid newspaper stories. It is not a question of what editors find objectionable. Many of our readers will come away thinking "that wasn't an encyclopedia article, that was a collection of news stories masquerading as a biographical article." At least that is often my impression as a reader, rather than as an editor. Carcharoth 14:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


"To me, that is invading his privacy, and can also end up being original research." Absurd. No Wikipedian is peeping over Al Gore III's fence, quizzing his neighbors, going through his trash. There's no original research. There is, however, summarization of official statements made by authorities and published by reliable, respected media sources. Essentially, your argument above makes unfounded claims in the furtherance of bad policy, uninterpretable policy. To address your overall point, it would be preferable if Wikipedia articles refrained from the kind of interpretive synthesis that makes published biographies sell. Cleaner and more useful is the clear and succinct summarization of established facts. Where interpretation is necessary, it should be properly attributed to the applicable authors/critics/journalists/pundits/whathaveyou. Writing a balanced biography isn't "hard" and doesn't need to be—it should merely refrain from distortions, which is clearly the spirit and intent of BLP.
"...this to me seems to open the doors to including on Wikipedia a mention of every single tabloid story about every politician and celebrity." Not if editors follow WP:V. You seem to be agglomerating mass media and tabloid journalism in order to make your point. Well, don't do this. The New York Times and ABC World News Tonight aren't tabloid media. In the cases that certain timely details aggregated from the media into Wikipedia articles with time become irrelevant and "fall off the map", they can be properly discarded from an article, satisfying your concern about biographies being just "a collection of news stories". Robert K S 02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
On the invasion of privacy point, you've quoted me out of context. What I said in full was "...(where only a few shreds of information are available), the attitude seems to be to keep the article and try and find the missing information to make it balanced. To me, that is invading his privacy, and can also end up being original research." I am saying that trying to find out and add more information would invade his privacy, not that the current article is doing that. The crucial question is: would you agree that if there is only a small amount of information about someone because they are (apart from several episodes of media coverage) essentially a non-notable, private individual, that it is not possible to write a NPOV article about such a person? And further, that, if there is only a small amount of information, trying to find more information about a private individual to satisfy NPOV is not acceptable?
On the other points, I agree totally that Wikipedia should not be doing the "interpretive synthesis" - instead, it should be reporting the "interpretive synthesis" of reliable sources (as you say). But here is the catch. An aggregation of established facts sourced from news stories is in itself an interpretive synthesis. In the case of many of Wikipedia's articles, this does not matter too much. But for biographies of living people, this process can introduce unacceptable distortions - looking at someone's life through the lens of the media. Again, I return to my point that Isaac Newton (biography) is different from Paris Hilton (collection of media stories). Two extreme examples, admittedly, but do you see my point?
As for your distinction between 'tabloid' and 'mainstream' news media, that is a difficult line to draw. There are many tabloid-type stories that appear in the mainstream media. The content matters as well as the source. You can't point to the source and say the content must be OK. Equally, you can't point to the content and say the source must be OK.
Finally, your point about current news stories falling off the radar a few weeks, months or years later, that would be fine if it worked that way, but the tendency is for things to stick if they are left. Also, that would require a disclaimer long the lines of "some of our articles may have a froth of current news stories in them, but if you come back later when the fuss has died down, we might have remembered to remove them if we haven't forgotten about it like everyone else has". Carcharoth 23:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification please

  • Recognize the different situation with regards to sources for historical people (by which I mean those that lived before the 20th century when there were less sources reporting on people and less of those sources have survived). Some of these have incomplete biographies, but that is due to lack of sources, rather than private living individuals not being reported on or not publicizing their information. (Carcharoth 10:27, 14 July 2007)
  • Historical people – I agree, with two comments. First, historical people are not covered under BLP. Second, I think this should also extend to notable people who were born or live outside of the United States. There is generally little information available about them, so amassing a complete biography that includes details about childhood, education, employment, marriage, and retirement is generally not possible. (Black Falcon (Talk) 15:30, 14 July 2007)

Is the suggestion here really that American-resident living people should have one standard of completeness and every other living person the much lower standard as dead historical people? --ROGER TALK 07:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think so, yes. But notability comes first. It is OK to have an incomplete article about a notable person, but not OK to flesh it out with non-notable stuff. That probably didn't come across as well as it should have done. I'll try again later. Carcharoth 11:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. My reactions? Firstly, in my experience, the bar for notability is set ridiculously low. Secondly, why do American-resident people require a different standard to people living in, for example, Australia or Canada or New Zealand, or the European Union? --ROGER TALK 12:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think he meant places where there are not extensive internet records, but people have to look in printed books instead... Carcharoth 13:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

former names of transsexual people

is there a wikipedia policy known as "wikipedia is not a tabloid" or similar... with guidelines that say to not dig up embarassing personal or private information about a living person and post it in their article? I'm thinking for example if a transsexual person does not want their old name to be made public and is trying to maintain a normal life without all kinds of embarassing personal information about their medical condition being posted on Wikipedia against their will or their privacy. If there is not already a policy about this, there definitely needs to be one. It's a serious matter of privacy. For example, recently the government of Ontario stopped publishing official records of old/new names of legal name changes in a public book for trans people, because of the risk to these people's security that it poses if they are "outted". Wikipedia needs to adopt a good rule on this too.--Sonjaaa 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Unless it's already public knowledge, this policy already forbids discussing it. An example might be better, but generally "private" information should never be included in articles, as is (already) discussed in this policy. In some cases, it might be relevant and encyclopaedic. Is this in regards to a specific article? WilyD 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The topic has come up a few times when I was editing articles of transsexual people who didn't want their private information about their past to be "outted" on Wikipedia. I'm asking if we can explicitly mention and spell out this application of the policy as an example in the actual page, to make it clear that discussing somebody's medical conditions and past names is forbidden by Wikipedia rules.--Sonjaaa 16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If it's being "outted", it's almost certainly forbidden. In some other cases, where medical conditions and past names are already in the public consciousness and are relevant to the person's notability, then it might be relevant, and includable. I'm not sure I'm aware of any examples, but it seems likely to be the case. Category:Transgender and transsexual people seems to include a lot of people, and in at least some cases their transsexuality seems to be notable - for example, it's probably noteworthy for most or all of the people in Category:Transsexual porn stars. The phrase -

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.

—WP:BLP, on relatively unknown people

and

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "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. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

—WP:BLP, on practices

are the sort of relevant areas - it's hard to enumerate all potential examples of this. Nonetheless, Privacy of Birthdates, Contact Information and Names might be collapsed into a more general thought, which could included elucidated and unelucidated criteria ... if you've some proposal, you can present it and see what people think. WilyD 17:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As to whether to mention the former name in the article, I think the answer is pretty well covered under WP:RS. If a non-tabloid well-recognized news source has already "outted" the person, then Wikipedia is not doing the outting and ought to report (don't even need to get into WP:BLP, although obviously that makes reversion of the OR more critical).
A more interesting thing to make explicit in the policy, I think, is for people who are well-known to have changed genders, which name should the article title be, and what gender pronoun should be used. Taking Wendy Carlos as an example, it seems the de facto standard is to recognize the the name the person wishes to be identified by and use the pronoun they now identify with. Which makes sense and seems to be the most sensitive approach. It might be worthwhile to spell that policy out in WP:BLP.... (although then again I'm not aware of it ever having been a problem) --Jaysweet 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The specific issue is probably an obscure MoS issue (though a very important one.) "Wikipedia is not a tabloid" is, I'm fairly sure, still in WP:NOT and is a perfectly good reason to remove past names from people who are not vocal about outing themselves. Phil Sandifer 18:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As Jaysweet said, I think we need to spell it out and explicitly in some sort of Wikipedia policy and say that transgender people should only be referred to under the name and pronoun that they prefer and not the old one. Also, unless the person is publicly out themself as transgender or transsexual, or unless they only transitioned after have already been famous and knownbefore, no mention of their transgender status or their former name should be made, to protect their privacy.--Sonjaaa 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The first point is explicitly spelt out exactly where Jaysweet said it would be: WP:MOS#Identity. It is a nonbinding guideline, rather than a nonbinding policy, although I'm not sure there's much practical difference. WilyD 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was looking in BLP and didn't see it, and for whatever reason I didn't think to look at MoS... Probably redundant to cover it both places, I guess.
Also, I very slightly disagree about Sonjaaa's criteria for when it should be named in the article. If a person has been widely "outted" in the mainstream media, Wikipedia should at least cover that aspect even if the person in question doesn't like it. I mean, imagine if it turned out George Bush was once a woman.. are we really saying we wouldn't mention it in Wikipedia??? heh... --Jaysweet 20:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure Sonjaaa is saying what you read her (him?) to be saying. She (he?) says privacy a lot which is really the key. If the information is private, we shouldn't say it (and this policy already says "if information in an article is private, remove it right the fuck now!!!"). This seems to be the kind of stuff Sonjaaa is talking about. I don't think she's says "Openly transsexual gender identity rights activists and people who star in Chicks with Dicks pornography shouldn't have their transgender status mentioned". That seems a bit far, agreed. WilyD 20:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but what about a highly notable person whose private information has been revealed by multiple mainstream sources against their will? In that case, I think the closest analog is the policy on birthdates. Care should be taken when disclosing birthdates that are not well-known, or are well-known but belong to not very well-known individuals. But if the subject is well-known and the birthdate is well-known, then sorry, it's not private anymore. I think the same thing would apply to transgender status. --Jaysweet 20:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The short of it definitely is though This policy already empowers you to do all the things you want this policy to empower you to do, and for that matter is emphatic that you should do so. There may be a way to rework it to make this clearer if it isn't already, but a "comprehensive list of unsourced statements you can't make about people" is going to be a)very long and b)probably not that helpful. WilyD 20:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we're getting a couple of discussions twisted. Let me clarify my position: I thought how to refer to transgender people needed to be spelled out, not realizing it already is spelled out in WP:MOS#Identity -- so I have no complaint there.
Regarding whether to mention a person's past identity in an article, I think WP:RS already covers it. Like WilyD said, it's not helpful or practical to spell out every unsourced or poorly sourced statement you can't make about a living person. But, I sort of disagree a little bit with Sonjaa on the interpretations of WP:RS and WP:NOT in this regard -- if a notable transgender person's former identity has been widely identified in reliable mainstream sources, then in the vast majority of cases it would be acceptable to include that piece of background info in Wikipedia whether the subject likes it or not. A very strict interpretation of WP:RS would apply in that case, of course...
I think one can reasonably ask, "Why would it matter?", but bios contain lots of information that is not particularly important beyond giving a person's, well, biography. If multiple mainstream sources thought it was important enough to report on, then I think there's your test right there. --Jaysweet 20:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I've recently noticed a few disputes arising from edits to BLPs made by people who've been involved in litigation, or some other real-life conflict, with the subject. One party arrives at Wikipedia to add details of the dispute to the other party's BLP. It almost always leads to trouble for various reasons e.g. because they want to use primary sources such as trial transcripts, or they want to highlight certain areas not highlighted by secondary sources, and so on. If they're prevented from adding the material to the article, they engage in protacted discussion on the talk page, which invariably involves posting the disputed material in full to make sure it's picked up by Google. I'd therefore like to add a conflict of interest subsection to the "Preventing BLP violations" section:

===Conflict of interest===

Off-wiki personal disputes should never be allowed to spill over into the editing of BLPs. Editors who have been involved in off-wiki conflict with the subject of a BLP should not edit that BLP or engage in protracted discussion on its talk page. Examples of off-wiki conflict include (but are not limited to) litigation, as well as financial, political, or employment disputes. If you have been in a real-life dispute with a living person, and you have reliably sourced material about that person that you feel should be added to an article, please post the suggestion succinctly on the relevant talk page, along with reliable sources, then withdraw to avoid the appearance of inappropriate involvement. If your suggestion is removed by another editor as a possible BLP violation, do not restore it. This provision applies to edits about living persons in any article.

Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Common sense in action. It's already pretty much implied by the intersection of COI and BLP. We wish to precluse the appropriation of the talk page, which is only a click away (and a likely click for readers as well as editors, as it's entitled "discussion",) as a the very vehicle hostile-COI editors are denied in mainspace ([remember Gordon James Klingenschmitt?)Proabivouac 01:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


It's an interesting proposal. However, and don't take this the wrong way, the impression I get is that you are trying to build a general case from a specific case, so that it can be applied to a specific case. Policy shouldn't be tailored to fit specific cases. There is also too much self-reference going on here. No need to say "off-wiki" and "real-life" in a general policy like this - it comes across as very insular. Also, too many abbreviations - the acronym BLP is used excessively and comes across as jargon. If this was all re-worded to sound less like "some people are fighting on-wiki, let's put something in this policy so we can shout at them to stop", then it might be better. And anyway, don't existing policies and guidelines already have clauses against this sort of behaviour? This proposal also comes across as proscriptive ("do this") rather than descriptive ("this is what we do"). Carcharoth 01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:COI has a page. -- Ned Scott 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This last point is very salient. This is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, not Wikipedia:all policies rolled into one. COI is probably a better place to discuss how to handle conflicts of interest. WilyD 03:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Famous people with my name

Add a section addressing a FAQ: e.g., there is an article about Dan Jacobson. But I am also named Dan Jacobson, but he is a somebody, and I am a nobody. What should I do about the situation, if anything? Jidanni 15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, for now. If you become famous, then we can add a disambiguation page.  :) --Jaysweet 15:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Privacy of birth dates

Biographies include the exact date the LP was born. In the USA, one's birthdate is an important part of establishing identity. Identity theft is much easier when the birthdate of the target person is known. Many times, a person's social security number is accidentally revealed, but that alone is not enough to easily steal their identity. The other key piece of information is the person's birthdate.

Every person with a biography in Wikipedia is especially vulnerable to identity theft. Please allow and encourage only the year of birth, and not the date in articles. The month and day are not necessary for a biography.

I qualify to have a biography in Wikipedia (written by someone else, of course), but I refuse. I understand that there would be pressure to discover my birthdate an insert it into the biography. --TK

I think this is a really weird guideline. You have to be mentioned in other published sources to be notable enough to be in wikipedia. If your birthdate is published elsewhere, it can make no difference to anything if it is also published in wikipedia. If it is not possible to find it out elsewhere, how the heck would it ever get into the wikipedia article? In my experience, people who don't want their birthdates known are more sensitive about the year they were born than they are about the actual date. Deb 18:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP: policy regarding BLP article name???

Is there any policy on havning an article titled by persons real name? I know in other areas of WP, there is such a policy. For example radio and broadcast TV, article have to be named by their call sign. So if a station is known as "power 99" and not by its call it doesn't matter. The article is still named by its calls. Same with say 6abc being a redirect to wpvi-tv, and not the otherway around, depite wpvi calls never used over air (outside station IDing. Thats how that section of WP works, and i'm just wondering if the same standard applies for WP BLP's? Sofar i've seen a few BLP's (For example Stacy Ann Ferguson the real name of singer Fergie, is a simple redirect to an article named fergie instead of the otherway around.) who don't use the person's real name, but who they're most known as, and I would like to know the offical policy before I either let it be, or try to move pages. Thanks for any help Rawboard 02:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

When an artist is actually known by a name, and that's the name which appears on his or her albums, the article would generally be titled by the artist's professional name, with the real name as a redirect to the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Also please note the following excerpt from Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. ... Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

-- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Might stubs sometimes be appropriate?

There's an article about me Michael Kay (software engineer) that's classified as a stub. I think it's reasonable for the article to exist, because there are a number of links to it, some of which predated the article. But I think it says all about me that an encyclopedia needs to say - I'm not really important enough to justify more. I don't see anything in the policies that says the amount of information published about someone should be proportionate to their importance, and the assessment of articles as stubs doesn't seem to take this factor into account.

In any case, I'm in a quandary. I don't want the article to remain tagged as a stub, and I don't think it's a good idea for me as the subject to take responsibility for fixing it. Mhkay 08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

On widely reported scandals of living persons

This policy does not specifically deal with scandals of living persons. (Things like Bill Clinton's sex scandals) So, I'm asking, are there any guidelines on the inclusion of a living person's scandals on his article?--Kylohk 07:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The policy does already address the issue

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it important to the article, and has it been published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out.


Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.


Material from primary sources should be used with great care. For example, public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records, should not be used unless cited by a reliable secondary source. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability.

—WP:BLP

The answer is - it depends. That Clinton got blown by some young lady was a major characteristic of his presidency - it definitely deserves mention (though be aware of WP:NPOV's undue weight clause). The local alderman who's wife gets caught stealing pants from Zellers - this is less likely to be relevant (but as always, look at it on a case by case basis). WilyD 13:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Basic human dignity

My attempt to insert the following principle approved by the arbcom by a vote of 11-0 was reverted:

Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

The edit summary[20] states that it is "excess/redundant text." However, there is nothing in the current policy which says that articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage. There is nothing in the current policy regarding those who are notable for being victims. And there is nothing in the current policy prohibiting editors from participating in or prolonging such victimization.

As this is an official ruling of the arbcom which they consider to be "implicit" in the policy even though any logician would be hard-pressed to show how to derive such an implication from the existing text, it is obviously essential that people referring to this policy see what the arbcom has decreed it prohibits. Therefore, I am replacing the text. ←BenB4 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Please develop a consensus before adding large, pointless chunks of text. The problem with this chunk of text is that it doesn't say anything new - it just makes the (already large, unwieldy) policy page larger and unwieldier. If there's some salient point in this you feel is undermephasized, explain what it is - but this policy needs to present a coherent vision, not be simply a haphazard collection of redundant thoughts. WilyD 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I stand by my initial summary and would like to illustrate my position via the following quotes from the policy page:
    In response to, "there is nothing in the current policy which says that articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage".

    Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

    The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary 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.

    Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

    In response to, "there is nothing in the current policy regarding those who are notable for being victims":

    Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

    If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. ... Cover the event, not the person.

    In response to, "there is nothing in the current policy prohibiting editors from participating in or prolonging such victimization":

    Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

    Administrators should obtain consensus before undeleting material that has been deleted citing this policy, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article.

    Disputes may be taken to deletion review, but any protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative.

    All of this is already covered explicitly in the policy. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't set policy just by the way, so if people object to the insertion, that it was passed by arbcom is irrelevant. ViridaeTalk 03:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sefl-published sources limitation

I've seen issues with this come up in several different contexts. As currently written, the policy says that the only self-published material that can be referenced in John's article is material that John himself published. This sometimes leads to some rather strange limitations.

As a hypothetical example. Suppose John and Ted are in business together. Ted makes uncontroversial statements about the business on his blog, but as currently constructed BLP prevents such statements from being referenced in John's article. Or perhaps a slightly more risque example. John and Ted have a publicly notable dispute (think candidates for political office), someone includes references to a press release issued by John, but in an article on John we couldn't include any reference to the press release issued by Ted, and hence coverage of the dispute can end up being one sided.

I'd like some suggestions on addressing this. One of the things worth discussing, in my opinion, is the degree to which the BLP privledge lies with "biography pages" versus "biographical information". Specifically, a rule that only John can self-publish material that can be included on John's biography "page" is different from saying only that only John can self-publish material about John. In particular, if Ted is discussed in John's biography, then it seems natural that self-published material by Ted can be used to describe Ted.

Do others agree with that? That BLP should apply principally to the kind of information being included and not to the specific context? Dragons flight 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Parents

I just removed the name of Amy Smart's parents. It's quite a common thing to have the names of parents in articles but I would argue that it goes against policy to include them - it doesn't add anything to the article unless that person is notable themselves. There may be other cases where it might be worth noting details about them, such as the rags to riches stories. violet/riga (t) 21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I also removed the names of her pets because they are private individuals too! ;) violet/riga (t) 21:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, I hope this isn't policy now. Do we have to take out the parents names in Katie Holmes, for example? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That's my interpretation of where we're going with things. I've brought it here because I can't really decide myself if it's the right thing to do or not. I can see both sides of the argument at the moment, so it'll be interesting to discuss it. violet/riga (t) 22:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought it would only be an issue if a situation was negative or where undue weight of a single event becomes a factor. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The relevant statement from the policy is:

Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.

As this stands I don't see anything about "negative or undue weight", so it suggests that we should remove them all. Rightly or wrongly. violet/riga (t) 10:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be comfortable with that. I suggest clarifying the policy instead. -- Ned Scott 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Privacy of names

New version:

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. It is often preferable to omit the name, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.
In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

Basically I've removed a lot of stuff that conflicted with "Wikipedia isn't a newspaper archive." If a name is not necessary we don't use it. You don't want your name to appear in Wikipedia because of some random tragedy. We cannot stop the newspapers doing this to us, but we can stop ourselves from aping their worst excesses. --Tony Sidaway 04:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Discuss first. We should include names whenever possible, as it is fundamental information, helps verification, and we're freaking Wikipedia for crying out loud. More often than not, us mentioning a name makes no significant impact to that individual. Technically speaking, we could just not write about people at all. Enough BLP paranoia. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. ViridaeTalk 05:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. This reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Massoud Tofangsazan (second nomination). I guess you two would have voted in the keep part. This case violated BLP in many ways and was rightfully deleted. But even if this event was noteable enough to merit a mention in wikipedia (which it wasn't), it doesn't mean that the name of the people involved in these events are. Your idea that it doesn't make a significant difference is IMHO a little silly. There is a big difference between someone's name appearing in the newspapers briefly and someone's name being in wikipedia for pertuity. 20 years from now when now that name is still going to be in wikipedia, very easily found. Nil Einne 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't see what the article was about, but from the AfD comments it sounds like some internet meme. I'm not big on keeping such articles (some, maybe, but the whole meme thing is just.. gah). So, no, I would not have likely supported keep. Clearly, there will be situations where excluding a name is good, but my point is that we shouldn't view that as a default. The majority of articles involving living people will not have an issue with naming the living person. Tony's edit suggested that we not even consider including a name, even if harm or whatever had yet to be brought up/conceivable. -- Ned Scott 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have examples that don't make this sound weird? Generally, I believe that if a person is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article then they are worth naming. I'm sympathetic to the idea that we may want to avoid mentioning people and events, but not to the extent that we talk about the those events using psuedonyms or undefined pronouns, etc. I also assume that we are talking about situations that are unambiguously verifiable, right? So using vague allusions would likely as not encourage curiousity into the identity anyway. Dragons flight 05:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A good example would probably be an eyewitness. Unless that eyewitness has been widely interviewed and almost deserving of an article, then it seems to me there is little point identifying that eyewitness as Gary Kenneth Williams (completely made up example). Another example would be in stuff like Tammy sex video scandal. We can't remove the Tammy part since it is an intrinsic part of the scandal. But even if here full name was identified in a reliable secondary source (I don't know if it was although she was identified), what concerns us here is the event. This is not a biography. Unless she she becomes widely known, there is absolutely no reason why her full name should be identified even if it appeared in a reliable source. Nil Einne 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If the name appears in numerous sources and that person is directly linked to the article then it would be normal to include the name. violet/riga (t) 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Part of this popped up because of a dispute on Talk:Baby 81. User:Mackensen wrote up a very excellent post about the matter (here) that I think puts the whole matter into perspective. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Mackensen is correct here. Many of the sources we link to have the real name, googling for "baby 81" turns it up in tons of reputable sources. This isn't some tabloid outing thing, the name is already public knowledge. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The idea that Wikipedia can shield people from facts reported by the BBC, the New York Times, The Globe and Mail, the New Zealand Herald - or information that people have called press conferences to announced or included in their autobiographies - is generally false. Absolutely, positively, we must insist on the highest quality sources, and we must act strongly to avoid any undue weight. In cases where information is already widely known and reported, we aren't doing anyone any favour by excluding it - and in cases where it isn't, we shouldn't be including it. If someone's name is private, or just reported in Johnny Nobody's blog - leave it out. It it's in the lead story three straight nights on the CBC - including it won't make much difference in how widely it's deseminated (basically, to anyone who cares). Be upright, and be moral - but don't figure yourself the great righter of wrongs the world over - it isn't the point of Wikipedia, and you may have trouble getting through doors if your head gets that large. WilyD 13:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ned's assessment that the import of my edit is that we absolutely shouldn't even consider using this name of a completely private person. Nothing encyclopedic is gained by it. I usually find that I agree with Mackensen, but I don't here. The whole article itself is no more than a human interest article dressed up as an encyclopedia article. If it has any encyclopedic value at all, it is because the media got this particular story badly wrong at first, and it it conceivable that this fragment may be of use one day to illustrate pitfalls of press reportage. The name of the infant is of no encyclopedic import at all; this is the most cut-and-dried case of that. We shouldn't drag his name into it because of what an over-imaginative copy editor did on a slow news day.
But getting back to my bold edit, the new version is:
Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. It is often preferable to omit the name, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.
In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.
It doesn't rule out the inclusion of the names of private individuals, but it does correctly allow for the exclusion of names that are not necessary. The Baby 81 case is one where obviously having the name in the article is completely unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Tony, we're not talking about an "over-imaginative copy editor" here. We're talking about professional editors at several highly respected and reputable publications, all deciding that publication of the name is acceptable and appropriate. As much as I'm sure you know better than all of them, let's at least get that straight. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
No you misunderstand the individual case--the Baby 81 story was originally this weird tale of nine sets of parents all claiming the same child. This alone made the case newsworthy. Children become separated from their parents in natural tragedies, it happens. The news story (which turned out to be false) was the nine couples.
Obviously I don't think that we should let the press set our standards for inclusion, that would be very silly, and this is an excellent example of why we shouldn't let them. --Tony Sidaway 04:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Tony, if you think the article itself should go, I'm not sure I would disagree. However, if we are to include the article then it would seem reasonable to include the name. In other words, I support including the name assuming the article not deleted. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
As is so very evident at the talk page of that article you are making assertions that do not have enough support. violet/riga (t) 08:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to submit the article for AfD, do that. I'm not even sure I'd argue to keep it, I'd have to think hard. But if we are going to have it, we need to do it right, and that means, as always, reflecting reliable and reputable sources, not second-guessing them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The article has little if any value but won't be deletable until the fuss dies down. Obviously we shouldn't needlessly broadcast the names of private individuals, and most especially infants. I don't believe it would be at all correct to say that this most basic element of human decency has little support on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 12:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't misrepresent my words - I never said that. I said that some of your assertions are not supported, including the fact that Baby 81 is a straight-forward case. violet/riga (t) 12:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologise if I've misrepresented you. I think it is a fairly uncontroversial statement that the article Baby 81 makes perfect sense without the incidental information of the name of the child. The only purpose in having the name would be to make a link between the child and the story, but as I think we've both agreed in the past the article, if there is one here, isn't about the child at all but about the news values and errors in reporting in this case. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The article severely diminished without reference to the name, including redirects, because that is simply going to be one of the main search terms, should people want to get more information from wikipedia. ViridaeTalk 14:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated in the post mentioned above, the inclusion of the name within the article and the inclusion of the article within the encyclopedia are two fundamentally different propositions. However, if we're going to have the article, then, per Viridae, the name should be included. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Mackensen and Viridae, et cetera. Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism, and I would not feel comfortable in some circumstances naming a person that reliable sources purposely decline to name, but at the same time I don't think we should second-guess the choice of reliable sources to give peoples' names, and follow their example when an article is appropriate in the first place. Mangojuicetalk 20:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

Someone here on the talk page stated "with the exception of talk pages", whereas the actual project page includes talk pages. Talk page statements are clearly personal opinion of the one making them, not official Wikipedia position. They're signed by the individual making them, and at the least via the IP address, traceable to the author. To demand the same standards for clear voicings of personal opinions as for articles is highly problematic. Not the least, it undermines the collaborative effort, since one person might actually know how to find sources for something another person suggests. --84.46.9.158 17:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no exception for talk pages or any other namespace, nor is there ever likely to be one. --Tony Sidaway 18:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, talkpages are subject to WP:BLP just like articles and I would add that talkpages are for discussing articles, not for "voicings of personal opinions". They are not forums.--Isotope23 talk 18:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think you get the point. Discussing the article per definiton implies stating opinions on it. If I say that I believe that section XYZ should be eliminated, I am stating my personal opinion. If I say that information XYZ should be included, I am stating a personal opinion. And under present policy, strictly enforced, I could not even state "read XYZ in The Sun, but don't think it's a particularly reputable source. Can anyone corroborate this?" --84.46.9.158 20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever known the present policy to be enforced like that? I agree that that is one way of interpreting it, but I've never heard of anyone getting yelled at or reverted for a comment like the example you gave. Heh, as it turned out, I made an almost identical content on a BLP Talk page myself, and it wasn't a problem. In practice, a guarded statement like you made would always be tolerated. It's more to prevent comments like, "XYZ is true but some jerk keeps reverting me, even though I read it in The Sun! Why is Wikipedia being censored, people need to know!"
Also, while in general I think your example would be okay, if XYZ was "so-and-so killed his mistress," it is probably better to not even put it on the Talk page until there is a reliable source...
If it becomes a problem, then we should think about changing the wording. Until then, though, comments like the example you gave are probably protected sufficiently under WP:IAR. --Jaysweet 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What you are stating would likely not be a WP:BLP violation if you were framing it in the manner you've given as an example above. If you are stating "The Sun had an article that Celebrity X is bulimic, has anyone seen this in a reliable source", I'm not so sure anyone would have a solid BLP reasoning to remove that from the talkpage if it was actually printed in the Sun. My point was in regards to your statement of voicing personal opinions. If I were to go to the article on Celebrity X and say on the talkpage "I heard Celebrity X is a monstrous bitch who bathes in the blood of virgins and tips poorly in restaurants", undoubtedly that should be removed from the talkpage as a BLP violation (and probably trolling as well). BLP requires a bit of common sense in the application, but I don't think excluding talkpages is a good way to go... in fact there was just a situation yesterday where something had to be blanked from a user talkpage because it was a clear BLP.--Isotope23 talk 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
A kind of related issue here, which I have seen frequently, is claim-creep, where a mere allegation becomes fact. Example: a newspaper reports says that Foo is wanted by the police in connection with drug-running and that translates into Foo is a drug-runner. Some people, even incredibly admins, don't understand the difference between an allegation and a conviction. --ROGER TALK 20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"it was a clear BLP" And what's that? Sorry, but I see this really as extreme. And frankly, I am not concerned whether the policy is enforced that way, as it stands, it is chilling. An encyclopedia is based on gathering and processing information, and if we disallow bringing information on the table, we're hindering work on the encyclopedia. The fact that talk pages are publicly viewable in no way detracts from the fact that they are clearly not the encyclopedic body, and the statements therein not in any way "official Wikipedia statements". As it stands, it was as if an expert group at the Britannica had clear guidelines not to ever consider talk about anything detrimental to the reputation of the object of the article unless it already is not just expert knowledge but public knowledge gone through the press a dozen times. In this way, what we're doing is giving articles on contemporaries a POV, because fanboys will brush off any hint of the inappropriate and, their defense not being detrimental, can abuse articles suggest there is no substance to criticism that is very much substantiated. @Roger Davies: This would be a case that is simply factually wrong. But what if it's factually right? What if the guy has been convicted, the user knows he has been convicted, but can't find the precise court decision reference anywhere? The statement "I know this guy's a convict" would already be grounds for deletion of the statement as it stands. --84.46.9.158 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
BLP applies to all publicly accessible space at Wikimedia, which obviously includes Wikipedia. -- Fyslee/talk 20:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
We already established that a while ago, that doesn't detract from the fact that it is cutting off one's own leg. It certainly doesn't qualify as good editorial practice. --84.46.9.158 21:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"The evil that men do lives after them. Be wary of putting it into Wikipedia before then." We avoid OR problems too when following this principle. -- Fyslee/talk 21:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Talk page is talk page and article body is article body. Two VERY different things. An encyclopedia also isn't a fanzine. It shouldn't exclude "the evil that men do" just because it detracts from their reputation. They had time to think about that before they did it. You're opening the gates wide for fanboys and making solid word that much harder. --84.46.9.158 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"Nope"? You just admitted that "We already established that a while ago," (referring to my statement that "BLP applies to all publicly accessible space at Wikimedia, which obviously includes Wikipedia."
Don't stretch my replication of a quote too far. It has previously been at the top of the BLP policy page. That's where I got it. It doesn't cover the subject completely, only covering the basic humanitarian principles behind the policy. If a subject is of importance and is well sourced, it can be used even if it "detracts from their reputation." The point is that is must be well-sourced, and that applies to all usage in Wikimedia, including talk pages and private user space (as you admit above). That's all I'm getting at. -- Fyslee/talk 09:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we "already established that". That doesn't change anything about the fact that a talk page is something fundamentally different, and that any policy which pretends otherwise has some serious issues distinguishing editorial work from content. There's a difference between that policy being established and it actually making the slightest bit of sense, let alone being beneficial for work here. The very fact that you write "even if" underscores that there's a double standard: Pityful excuses are perfectly allowed, but scientific facts are not, because more often than not, they cannot be sourced in the context of a specific case. --84.46.10.148 18:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
While there's no denying that BLP talk page deletion can in a few instances be a hiderance to work, that's kind of irrelevant. BLP is primarily about being fair to living people, not about making an editor's work easy. And the BLP talk page policy is needed. I have and will always delete on sight any completely unsourced speculation about living people. It's not our job to facilitate or aide people who wish to potentially defame living people by posting unsourced claims whether via talk pages or articles. Clear opinions aren't quite as bad but they are OT as on all talk pages and there is never anything wrong with deleting them in general IMHO and especially not on BLPs. Note that despite your earlier claims, the fact that someone signed something doesn't make it their opinion. If for example I say "84.46.10.148 is a child-molestor" this is clearly not an opinion but a statement of fact. Since I've attributed it to myself, this makes it clear that I'm at fault; but this doesn't change the fact that it is potentially defamatory and in any case if completely unsourced it should not be anywhere on wikipedia. An opinion would be something like "I think 84.46.10.148 is an idiot". P.S. Please don't take anything I said the wrong way. I'm not attacking your or being uncivil. I originally used John Doe as my example but changed to you since I felt it might help you realise why it's exceptionally bad. I do not think you're an idiot nor a child-molestor. Nil Einne 11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
And I don't think you're getting the point the IP makes. If you say "84.46.10.148 is a child-molestor", yes, it is a statement of fact, but a statement of fact BY YOU, and not by Wikipedia. It is completely irrelevant if it's sourced, unsourced or whatever. If the person has an issue with you making that statement of fact, your IP is available, your ISP can be contacted, and the person can take legal action against YOU. The talk page is clearly marked as "talk", not as encyclopedic content. I am reviewing and editing scientific publications as part of my work, and you can hear me quite often stating that the author is a complete and utter moron who has no idea what they're doing because of A,B,C. In the written review, I will put that a bit more politely, but if you're around while I discuss the paper with fellow editors, I have no reason not to call a spade a spade. "Being fair to living people" is an issue for the contents, not the editorial work. No, it is not our job to facilitate or aide people who wish to defame living people. But it is our job to gather information, whether it's positive or negative. And what I see some people doing here especially in the cyclist field is an inch away of aiding and abetting in the cover-up of activity that is criminal in some countries. Not to mention that they have no hesitation to slander living people that happen not to be the subject of the article discussed, but -in part- the subject of other articles on wikipedia. When user:Severo calls accredited doping expert and professor of cellular and molecular biology Werner Franke a troublemaker whose voice doesn't carry much weight when he is cited on his area of expertise, that's tolerable because it happens on the page of Alberto Contador??? He certainly feels happy to remove all sorts of alleged BLP violations everywhere else. --213.209.110.45 08:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Query about redirects regarding a person notable only for one event

I'm trying to find out what best practice is in a case of someone notable for one event only, where the policy advises that we cover the event, not the person. I'm dealing with a case where the person's name has been created as a redirect to the article about the event. So far as I know, this creates the same Google problem as would a BLP about that person. Is best practice that the redirect be deleted? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is decided that we have the name in the article itself then a redirect would be sensible. Google will pick up the name in the article but not give it quite as high priority as an article title (including redirects). This won't make much difference if the name doesn't get many hits. More importantly by typing that name into our internal search engine it will appear as the top entry in the search and just lead to a further click. violet/riga (t) 08:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

"living persons" This should be changed, it suject that anything made up about the non-living is fine, There has been a problem occurring time and time again on the biography of J. Howard Marshall who is no longer living, there has been {an} editor(s) slandering him by suggesting that "he sponsored Nazi causes" without any reliable sources, WP:BLP should be for the living as well as the dead.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deceased persons are still covered by the policies on neutrality, verifiability, and original research, and the reliable sources guideline. If the statement in the J. Howard Marshall article is not supported by reliable sources, it may be removed even without BLP. This proposal (to expand the scope of BLP) has been suggested many times (see the talk page archives) and routinely rejected. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Black Falcon. BLP draws from all the other guidelines and policies, and adds a sense of urgency, and some penalties. But the underlying policies still apply. - Crockspot 17:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There is indeed something odd about that, as it implies that the minute someone dies they're under less scrutiny per policy. Not only is this misleading, in some cases it can be every bit as important to verify information on the recently dead: look at the Chris Benoit situation, WP's poor handling of which led to a police investigation in which computers were seized. I think BLP could be re-termed Biographies of Contemporary Persons, which would include the recently dead and those with active estates, etc while excluding historical figures. Of course the ultimate solution would be to just declare that as a reliable and often-accessed information source, Wikipedia can and should treat articles about all real people of every with care and scrutiny.... but I might as well be asking for the moon on a stick. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I would guess that an active estate could still sue for libel, so you make a good point. But rather than change the name of the policy, perhaps we could add a sentence or two to the policy covering this. Something along the lines of: The recently deceased, those with active estates, and persons with an unknown living status, are to be treated as living persons in relation to this policy. I'm thinking of Natalee Holloway with that last bit, an article which the editors of have agreed to abide by BLP until her status is confirmed. - Crockspot 18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
      • That sounds like a very reasonable solution, and I support it. I still find something vaguely disturbing about the implication that there's a certain point at which an inaccurate, libelous or hurtful biography matters less than it once did. In my wikiphilosophy, Donald Trump deserves a well-referenced, accurate biography... but so does Nicole Brown Simpson, and for that matter so does Winston Churchill and Charlemagne and Imhotep. The need to treat subjects fairly and reasonably shouldn't end when their heart stops, or when their estate dissolves, or on their 10,000th birthday. Ideally, our fairness and reliability should be eternal. But now I'm just dreaming. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I disagree. One very important person can no longer be harmed at the instant the subject dies; the subject. That makes a huge difference. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When the only source is a person's own webpages

I have a question that I think needs answering. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hucko (2nd nomination), a point has been made that we have no proof of the existence of this person outside of "his" own webpages. The Mark Hucko Wikipedia article seems to be entirely sourced from webpages "he" has created himself. Given this, we have no way of knowing he eixsts outside of a few personal webpages.

Should we even have an article on him, in this case? I'm not asking about Notability criteria, as there's a separate discussion going on about that: someone who is asserted to be Mark Hucko has invented a constructed pan-Slavic language that a couple people on the internet have written articles in. The big problem is, we have no real proof that Mark Hucko exists, outside of the assertion of a person who's been calling himself Mark Hucko.

Basically, my question is: should WP:LIVING even allow us to write an article on a living person based entirely on websites asserted to be "his"? Leave aside any arguments regarding notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

People are presumed to be reliable sources about themselves. However, notable things are the subjects of multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. That doesn't exist here. In order to use him as a source for himself, you first have to create a certain level of reliability from other sources. In a sense notability and RS are joined at the hip here, reliable sources should be used first to establish him, and his own stuff can be used to flesh it out. That doesn't exist here.
This article makes claims about other things as well. "In 1979 he had founded and directed Longevity Research Hospital," this is a claim about two things, Hucko, and the hospital. It's easy to find a source that the hospital existed, http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C1007304 but you would need to get old archived records to associate it with Hucko as it was dissolved in 1980 and his name isn't on the operating license but would be in the articles of incorporation. How notable a claim is it to found something in 1979, that was dissolved in 1980? SchmuckyTheCat
  • It seems to me that anyone whose activities have *NEVER* been covered by reliable independent sources, that would be an example of someone outside the scope of what a general-interest encyclopedia can reasonably cover. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the two comments above. We can't "leave aside ... arguments regarding notability". If a subject cannot be proven to be notable enough for inclusion, questions of how we should write an article about them are moot. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of subject's first name

I've noted an extremely frequent albeit inconsistent habit by writers of referring to their subjects by first name. This is especially common in articles about people in the arts and popular culture. This habit instantly lends an unprofessional and pov quality to the articles, and can lead a reader to wonder if the article were simply copied and pasted from promo materials for the artist. It can be tedious as hell for other people to have to change all those first names to last names. If there's a consensus on this, perhaps it should be addressed here in the section on writing style. Bacrito 14:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What you've described is one of my pet peeves. "After graduating, Alex went on to ..." ... argh! Since this is mostly a style issue, already covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names, I'm not sure it's necessary to mention in the BLP policy, which is primarily about content. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cat criminals

As worded this section calls for those on the reciveing end of the soviet show trial to be placed in cat criminals. This be the case I see little point in lengthening the page further with flawed examples.Geni 22:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of listed affiliation is not evidence that the person is not affiliated?

By this argument, anyone's biography on Wikipedia could claim that they were British Lords, or heirs to the French crown, or recipients of the Nobel Prize, in spite of a lack of evidence to confirm any such wild claim, made by the subect himself or herself, or by a second party.

Clearly, this is not helpful. I believe that noting that the individual at question is not listed on an official document is not WP:OR, and it is not WP:POV. It is just a plain bland fact. For example, "person X is not listed as an heir to the French Crown on a list published by Y. Person Z does not appear on the list of Nobel Laureates on the official list published at W, although person Z claims to have a Nobel Prize." These statements do not make the leap of inference to say that person Z or person X lied or their information was misrepresented intentionally by someone. That is left to the reader. The inconsistency is noted, and that is all. No speculation as to the reason for this are presented, since that might be OR. For example, stating in an article that the reason for this inconsistency is some given reason, such as:

  • lying
  • delusion
  • typographic error
  • mistake
  • confusion
  • cheating

and so on, is probably verging into OR and might violate the rules of WP:BLP. Do I understand this correctly?--Filll 14:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By stating as much, we're strongly implying that it's not true. Someone else (a reliable source) needs to have written about the person not appearing on the list, or it's original research. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving error?

The bot seems to have blanked the whole current talk page; I restored it in an earlier edit; see editing history of talk page. --NYScholar 09:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]

Previous discussion of "External links" occurs in Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 9#External links, an archive page which previously had no listing in the archive box; in the earlier edit, prior to restoring the blanked page, I added both Archive 9 and Archive 10 so that people can access these archived pages. --NYScholar 09:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Today's edits by Geni and Blackfalcon

...in case anyone complains, I think they're great and improve the logic and clarity of the page.

BTW, any more opinions on WillyD's proposed language to amend the page in reference to external links? We've got three people on board so far I think. It gets a little buried but the proposal is here. Wikidemo 21:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)