Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

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.

1 Florida?
2 Question regarding corporate entities
3 Death
- 3.1 "top-ten site"
- 3.2 "and when they complain about our edits"
4 Seeking clarification regarding the reliability of gossip sources
5 OJ Simpson
6 Articles vs. Talk / User / Project pages
7 Talk pages
8 Policy Interpretation
9 unclear
10 New changes
11 NPOV
12 Death Threats against rugby referee in Wikipedia
13 Problem with your wikipedia article
14 Privacy - Discussing financial information
15 Non-controversial information, proposed
16 Jean-Paul Ney‎ article
17 Categories
18 privacy
- 18.1 Mother's maiden name
19 ok, so are we done with that and ready to deal with my other two edits?
20 Danger Will Robinson
21 3RR exclusion
22 Negative assertations by primary sources
23 Sourcewatch
- 23.1 Other unreliable external links to be removed from BLPs
24 "a manner that does not overwhelm the article"
25 "controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements"
26 Removing content from Google
27 Contact Information, revisited
28 Conflicting sources?
29 Removal of Jimmy Wales cites
30 2007 Royal blackmail plot
31 Images of living people
32 Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation says:
33 Criticism Guidelines
34 Policy does not reflect practice
35 Wales quotation on dictating policy
36 Feedback loop?
37 Self published sources
38 Clarifying
39 Non-generic language
40 A person, and a persons work
41 Florida
42 Suggestion to expand WP:BLP to include images
- 42.1 Suggested wording
43 Ledwith
44 BRDP
45 Family Portrait
46 non article space
47 Conflicts between WP:V and WP:BLP concerning self-published material
- 47.1 3rd party self published material and today's featured article
- 47.2 Disputed tag
48 Edit about sources
49 Sources again
50 New sentence

Florida?

Umm.....why does it say strictly abide by laws of Florida, and USA? Why Florida, is there a special law there? --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 03:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the state the database servers are in. States have slightly different laws so useful to know which one.Geni 04:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding corporate entities

There are only occasionally questions regarding the "motivations" of corporate entities in the recent past. Would discussing the motivation of such an ideologically-homogenous organization for making certain actions be also, effectively, a statement regarding the individuals in that organization who would be in a position to act on their motivations? If yes, would it also be true that, if the events were in the recent past, that BLP might be seen to apply, as what is being discussed might well be the motivations of the individual leaders of the organization? John Carter 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen this addressed but my first reaction is no, if a statement does not single out individual natural people in an identifiable way then it is not bout a living person. That goes for characterizing companies, professions, and in most cases referencing people by their position (e.g. police on the scene failed to prevent the mob from yyyyy). Quite apart form BLP issues, though, it's a slippery thing to attribute intentionality, motivations, or knowledge to a group or institution. Often it's a fallacy or a POV issue. There are a few places like reporting a legal conclusion, or describing theories of group behavior, where it makes sense. Wikidemo 18:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of Wikidemo's analysis. However I disagree about reporting on the motivations of organizations. To begin with, many organizations claim motivations for their actions: "we're cutting jobs to reduce costs", "we're supporting this bill because we believe it will improve security", "we're introducing a line of sneakers to target the 10-12 year old market sgment", etc. In addition, pundits and other commentators routinely ascribe motivations to organizational actions: "they're trying to reposition themselves as a value brand", "they're supporting the bill because it would lower their tax liability", "they stopped opposing the bill when they were paid off", etc. Most of these are opinions, but if they are published in reliable sources and if they are significant viewpoints then they should be included, in most cases with attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. An organization may have a purpose for its actions, or a corporate objective. I was thinking more along the lines of human feelings or motivations, like attributing pride, anger, jealousy, etc., to a company.Wikidemo 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Death

I added this line to the policy:

In particular, speculation about the health or death of a living person is not to be included in articles. A biography of a living person should not be changed to characterize them as dead or dying, unless supported by reliable sources with citations to allow verification.

Which seems like an obvious conclusion that is indisputable, but apparently an editor does dispute it so I will post it here to see what is disputed. Dhaluza 00:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It [the addition] is not necessary and it is unclearly worded. No possibly "contentious material about living persons" is permissible ("unless supported by reliable sources with citations to allow verification") already. Any such speculative content that does not come from "reliable sources" (WP:V#Sources) is possibly contentious content and cannot be included in Wikipedia--whether it is about living persons or anything else. That violates WP:NOR [and WP:V.] I see no need for the addition just because [editors in one article] dispute policy. Send the editor(s) to WP:BLP to discuss his/her/their dispute. Have him/her/them contact an administrator for assistance. But one does not change WP:BLP simply because one editor (or some editors) dispute(s) something in a content editing dispute in one article. --NYScholar 00:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

People engaged in editing content disputes are not supposed to come to policy project pages to change them in order to support their arguments in such disputes. Please see WP:Edit warring for how to proceed with problems of that kind. [Prior to thinking about changing WP:BLP, please read this talk page and some of the archived discussions for some context. Thanks.] --NYScholar 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC) [corr. --NYScholar 00:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)]

Moreover, if the addition is such an "obvious" "conclusion" from reading WP:BLP, it does not need to be added. If it's so "obvious" a conclusion, it's obvious from the policy as already stated. [It's just one example of what the policy pertains to.] Because some people are having problems convincing others of that is not a reason to put the addition in the policy. It is redundant with what is already stated in the policy. (Plus, it is not clearly worded anyway.) ... --NYScholar 00:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC) [[Logging off Wikipedia in a bit; got distracted. --NYScholar 01:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)]

1) If the wording is unclear, editing it to make it clear advances the ball, reverting the change does not. 2) There is no edit war, much less any serious dispute--editors are simply reverting unnecessary speculation, and the Steve Fossett page is semi-protected again. This case just highlighted another issue with BLP, and it seemed appropriate to document it for the future. Although it should be an obvious conclusion, it's often best to state the obvious. Dhaluza 03:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments but I also think it's unnecessary because it's so obvious. So I urge against cluttering up the policy page with a specific rule on the subject. Also, premature reports of death based on speculation or unconfirmed stories are a special case, such a tiny fraction of all BLP problems that they don't deserve space on the policy page on the same level as the main rules. We do deal regularly with hoaxes and vandalism but we already have a policy on that, and the newbies who do it are unlikely to refer to this page. Is there a better place to put such a statement, perhaps a policy or guideline relating to current events? Or maybe just come up with a template to deal with it.Wikidemo 03:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If this page is to be read and followed rather than provideing fodder for rule lawyers it needs to be short and to the point. That means not trying to specificaly cover everything that could happen every.Geni 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"top-ten site"

Someone has questioned this phrase. It has no linkage in Wikipedia as documentation. "Frequently-consulted site" is clearer if there is no linkage or documentation of "top ten" of what. Where is the list of "top ten" sites documenting this claim? Where is some page in Wikipedia to link to in the phrase to verify that? The editor reverting the addition (which had other problems--it was too long and unwieldy and unclear and interrupted the sentence coh.) says "unnecessary" in the summary. I think it is necessary either to link to what the phrase means or to delete it and add something like "frequently-consulted" before "site" (less unwieldly than a long explanation). --NYScholar 18:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentence in more correct and clearer syntax. It does not change the meaning of the sentence. (I split the first sentence, which had an error of grammar, into more than one sentence and linked the clauses of the other sentence more correctly. As in other cases, the passive voice leads to some of these problems. I changed one sentence to include a verb more concisely. --NYScholar 18:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"top-ten" needs some kind of documentation/link (see above) so that it refers to something that will make sense. Otherwise, it is distracting and just needs to be something like "frequently-consulted website" and the phrase that I added "consulted frequently by readers on the internet" (an appositive defining what "top-ten" means) can be omitted. --NYScholar 18:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I took most of that out. Saying the obvious (Wikipedia is popular, we must adhere "strictly" to policies, etc) is just fluff and looks somewhat unprofessional.Wikidemo 18:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"and when they complain about our edits"

Also an error in the syntax (sentence structure) of the sentence. It is a ridiculous way to say whatever it is that is supposed to mean (I've questioned it earlier). An earlier suggestion that I made intended to make clearer what that may refer to (who knows in that sentence as it appears?). Please do something to fix that problem. I would just leave the whole thing out. It makes no sense. If the policy is trying to say something about what people who "complain about our edits" are supposed to expect of Wikipedia for some reason, then please figure out a better way to make that point clear. (Right now, it is not clear.) --NYScholar 18:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy to remove that too. I don't think there's anything in this policy that relates to complaints by the subject. Wikidemo 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Given your recent change (I just corrected a typographical error--leaving in the "; therefore") and deletion of that phrase, I think that the section "Rationale" is much clearer and to the point. --NYScholar 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

With the "fluff" taken out, one can see that the "rationale" itself may need further development of an actual "rationale." I have to go offline now, but I leave this for others to consider. If the "rationale" does involve what "our subjects" are supposed "to expect" of or from Wikipedia, then there may be a way to address that without addressing them ("our subjects"). The focus of this section needs sharpening for greater clarity in whatever is further developed in it. --NYScholar 18:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I take exception with these undiscussed edits, NYScholar. The text is there 'for a reason. Please slow way down, discuss changes and gauge consensus before making edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I understand your reverting back to original. I thought the changes were minor stylistic ones. (I still think "Rationale" needs development and clearer development. Its intended meaning is not clear.) That said, I will observe that some of the changes that you reverted were extremely minor grammatical corrections, like inserting "that" where a conjunction is necessary. Please take a look and see if you can restore the very minor changes that you might not have difficulty with (given what you stated earlier re: minor stylistic or syntactical changes [corrections]). Just saw this comment; I have to be logged out of Wikipedia to do other work, so I leave this type of revision to others. (The changes that I suggest are in the editing history.) --NYScholar 04:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just stopping in to point out that my changes were not "undiscussed"; my discussion of them is above. I think the section on "rationale" still needs further discussion/further revision. It is not an adequate statement of a "rationale" for the policy as it currently is, and it is not written well, in that it has problems of grammar. The writing of the policy needs to be an example of good writing (given the quotation from Jimmy Wales cited twice in it). --NYScholar 22:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeking clarification regarding the reliability of gossip sources

Celebrity gossip is big business these days, and it appears that mainstream news outlets are become increasingly involved in the gossip business. For example, CNN has been touting its connection with TMZ.com and Harvey Levin of TMZ often appears on CNN. Internet gossip Perez Hilton is invited on mainstream television to comment on gossip. Not all "mainstream" gossip is new; Page Six is a long-standing and popular gossip column within the NY Post, but mainstream publications will sometimes circumvent this distinction by citing an item to the Post without mentioning that it is from Page Six. The standards for reporting gossip are different than those for reporting hard news--after all, it's only gossip and is reported as such. Is a gossip column in a mainstream publication a reliable source of information about a person by Wikipedia's standards? -Jmh123 18:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As you say, gossip columnists are appearing on legitimate news shows, and journalists are appearing on gossip shows. If newspapers and news shows clearly labeled their gossip content then it would be easier for us to come up with a clear guideline. Regarding Page Six, it has had some recent scandals but it is also a part of a large, accountable media outlet and is presumably edited in some fashion. Most gossip is trivial and not worth including for that reason alone (it isn't encyclopedic to list who has been dating whom, but longterm partners are worth including). Certainly when stories become so important that the subjects comment on them that crosses a line. It's a tough call, but I think we should try to minimize the amount of gossip-like material we include and should be very wary of sources that resemble gossip columns. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the standards of the Post, such as they are, are met by Page Six. I have seen too many errors of fact there to accept that. Likewise MSNBC.com's gossip column is, in my experience, not a reliable source of fact. TMZ is on a roll for the moment, but I doubt it's on its way to become a respected member of the journalistic community. I agree with the rest of what you say: gossip is trivial. We should minimize its inclusion and should be wary of any source that is labeled "gossip." -Jmh123 23:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OJ Simpson

Am I missing something? When I looked at OJ Simpson's article, I was surprised to find no section for his NFL or acting career. They were removed per BLP. I can understand if there are specific slanderous unsourced statements, but this doesn't appear to be the case. Gotyear 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that the information was removed because it wasn't sourced. Technically, that could be done at any time, particularly if some of the content added were in some way, maybe even indirectly, related to a matter of dispute and/or defamation. Certainly, I believe that there would be no objections to requesting the data be reinstated. However, it would very much help if a specific, reliable source for the information was cited. John Carter 21:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, any uncited information about a living person should be removed. If the info is uncontroversial and also correct, however, what you might want to do is just copy the text or userfy it and find reliable sources for everything. That way, everyone will be happy. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it. That's one of the stranger applications of policy I've seen. If anyone cares to improve the article they're welcome, but deleting sports statistics on a BLP claim is pointless. Wikidemo 23:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC) (no offense intended to our prolific and constructive wiki colleague who did the deletion)Wikidemo 23:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the restore. It should be sourced, but it is not contentious or disputed information, and is sourcable. Dean Wormer 19:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, any article on OJ Simpson is likely to be horribly unbalanced without his football or acting career information, which is likely to be neither contentious nor negative. Wily D 00:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - using BLP to remove this is a grotesque abuse of what BLP is for. Phil Sandifer 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles vs. Talk / User / Project pages

An attempt is being made to add a change to this policy to extend BLP protections to talk about living people to talk, project, and user pages. This seems somewhat misguided. While outright libel has no place in any subspace of this project, imposing the same high burden of sourcing for any controversial information even on discussion outside the main encyclopedia space seems unwarranted. If taken literally, this would eliminate such things as WP:AN/I, where Wikipedians' behavior is discussed (generally not sourced from reliable news media, which, while they cover Wikipedia quite a bit these days, don't go so far as to do articles about every act of petty vandalism). This would appear to be more fallout from the contentious "attack sites" debate, and it's the mirror image of various efforts to apply WP:NPA to article space, sometimes risking compromising WP:NPOV. The fact is that article space, user space, talk space, and project space are all different in nature and purpose, and have different standards for what is acceptable in each. Attempts to apply a policy made for one space in a totally literal way to a different one are not generally sensible. *Dan T.* 01:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for having the civility to bring this discussion to the talk page! We should all be so considerate. But with all due respect and more, I think you have it backwards. The policy applies and has always applied to the project and user pages, and every other page on Wikipedia. We don't repeat libel, period. Anywhere. People on both sides of this little edit spat are 100% in agreement on this. It's just a dispute over how to say that. Some people seem to think that it makes a statement stronger to follow up a universal statement with a partial list of particulars. You know, "nobody is allowed backstage after the show, not performers, crew, or audience." Versus some people who think it's stronger to say it once because to make a list implies exceptions...(but what about vendors and agents?). "Nobody is allowed backstage, period." You do raise a good point about AN/I, etc., but that's a separate issue that has some subtleties to it, and we should talk about that elsewhere. Wikidemo 01:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

Wikidemo, this has been in the lead since around May 2006, so please don't keep removing it. Can you say here what your objection is? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, thank you too for bringing it here but I could say the same: we already talked about it so.... See above for the rationale. Enumerating three types of pages is unnecessary, and actually makes the statement weaker by implying that other pages aren't covered. We all agree (I think) that it applies to all of Wikipedia. But you know, if it's a tiny tiny issue and if you have a good argument or feel strongly about it, I'm not going to get in your way. So if you or anyone else puts it back in, I've already reverted twice and I won't do it a third time. It's just process....people swooping down after the fact and reverting things they personally object to without having participated in the discussion. It makes it very hard to participate in policy pages when they get reverted like that. The discussion pages were quite chaotic during the time, but Jossi was around to keep order, and you know he wouldn't have let anything pass if he thought it were a major change or an ill-conceived idea. Thanks again. Wikidemo 01:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has challenged my explanation of why the change was made. If nobody is going to say otherwise I'll treat this as accepted and restore within 6-12 hours.Wikidemo 05:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. First, that BLP applies to talk pages has been mentioned explicitly in the lead for about 16 months — more or less ever since it's been policy — so if want to remove it, you need strong consensus, not just a couple of people on talk.

Second, the reason it was added 16 months ago is that it's an issue lots of people got confused over, and sometimes deliberately so. We had spates of editors adding their allegations to talk pages when they found they weren't being allowed to add them to articles. All they wanted was to have the claims published somewhere on Wikipedia, so they'd be picked up by search engines. It mattered not to them whether the claims were in an article or somewhere else, because their aim was to blacken someone's name, not contribute to an encyclopedia article. That's why it's important to stress that we're talking about claims about living persons anywhere on the site, not just in articles. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Slim, no offense, but you've done far greater changes yourself as a matter of copyediting. I have no strong feeling about it, but I can understand the reasons and no change in meaning was made. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It was quite a substantial change, Ned, because having that in the policy made a big difference, and removing it would too, but in the wrong direction. I accept that "in Wikpedia" means the same as "including talk pages" etc. But we do need to make it explicit because otherwise people don't realize. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I just checked what the lead said when the page was upgraded from guideline to policy in July 2006, and it did say article and talk pages. [1] I'd say there's a fairly strong presumption in favor of keeping it unless there are really good arguments against. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't thought of a good way to phrase this yet, but there is a difference between where and how something is stated. As probably the most obvious example, I can write I am a mouse on my user page, without fear of it being removed, an unsourced statement about a living person that could well be considered somewhat controversial in most biographies. :-) We also need to be able to discuss whether or not to include borderline entries in an article on article talk pages. But we also need to be able to remove blatant attacks on living persons, even from user and talk pages. If anyone can think of a way to say that in a few sentences, I'd be obliged. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A consensus for saying the obvious and citing Jimbo in the process...and for an admonition that something is never discussed when it is in fact discussed all the time. Nobody takes this particular part of the policy literally. Obviously, most people do explain what they're doing when they delete poorly sourced contentious material about living people, and people query on talk pages all the time whether BLP info is unduly contentious or ill sourced. Do a search for "Tom Cruise" and "gay" in the same page and there are 200+ examples on Wikipedia. It's only a tiny fraction of material that is so hot to handle that we want to remove all traces of it. But I won't challenge that statement if it's what everyone wants. If wording it this way helps explain it to people who would otherwise violate the policy, that's a higher purpose than my being fussy about the tone of the prose. My aim here is to improve the way the policy is written, not change the policy, but if the current wording is what works best, fine. Wikidemo 06:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy Interpretation

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to 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. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

I was wondering, with regard to the above mentioned material, should criticisms of someone or accusations of scandals or controversies be only third party sources? For example, John Doe (notable in some way shape or form) say Tom Smith is a racist. Several questions arise from this:

Does The Daily Podunk (or any reliable third party) have to notice and comment on John Doe’s statements before it is a controversy?
Can John Doe opinions be included without the third party citation?
If not appropriate for Tom Smith’s article, is it still appropriate for John Doe’s article?
Is this a BLP issue?

Now, instead of John Doe being a notable person, say that he is a columnist for The Boofoo Herald and Post

Does The Daily Podunk (or any reliable third party) have to notice and comment on John Doe’s statements before it is a controversy, or is the Boofoo Herald and Post?
Can John Doe opinions be included without the third party citation?
If not appropriate for Tom Smith’s article, is it still appropriate for John Doe’s article?
Is this a BLP issue?

Another example for clarification: The Society for A Better Widget (or any noteworthy group) says that Joe Johnson builds the worst mousetrap in the world.

Does The Daily Podunk (or any reliable third party) have to notice and comment on The Society for A Better Widget’s statements before it is a controversy?
Can The Society for A Better Widget’s opinions be included without the third party citation?
If not appropriate for Joe Johnsons’s article, is it still appropriate for The Society for A Better Widget’s article?
Is this a BLP issue?

What I am trying to resolve here is group vs individual criticism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The policies of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV cover the aspects related in your questions. John Doe's viewpoint cannot be used in neither John Does or Tom Smith's articles, if Does' viewpoint is only available in a self published source, as such sources cannot be used to support claims about third parties. If Does' viewpoint was published in The Daily Podunk, it may be used in either article with the proviso the the Podunk is considered a reputable publication (in particular if the claim is contentious), and the Podunk's viewpoint is significant and does not breach WP:UNDUE. Similarly The Society for A Better Widget’s opinions can be cited in the society's article in Wikipedia, under the caveats of WP:SELFPUB ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

unclear

The meaning of "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source." is unclear. See the discussion at the talk page of NOR. WAS 4.250 00:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

New changes

User:WAS 4.250 has made a number of small-ish changes to the page without discussion, many of which I reverted. That's fine, and the nature of things - if a small change on a policy page goes unchallenged one may assume it's accepted; if not, it should be discussed first. However, the editor deleted this phrase a second time. I'm not fully up on how everything in BLP came to be, but the admonition against appearing to side with critics, even if their views are well-sourced, seems to have been in the policy section for a while and represent a consensus. The reason for this is obvious in my opinion. WE simply don't take sides on controversial matters. If something is a well-established fact we can say so, but without joining one side or the other in a debate. This has come up recently, for example, in the game of media "watch dog" groups that repeatedly bash politicians, journalists, and each other over alleged factual misrepresentations and inaccuracies. Each digs up factoids in an attempt to show the other is wrong, dishonest, etc. We have to be very careful how we use these sources because if we cite them in a way that implies an endorsement, we are taking their side in a partisan debate. Wikidemo 00:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

In "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to 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" the last part "or appear to side with the critics" violates NPOV. The view of critics of Osama bin Laden that are notable and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources should be in the article regardless of whether or not they "appear to side with the critics". "Appear to side with the critics" violates NPOV and should be deleted. WAS 4.250 00:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so. BLPs is not about the critics of the person, but about the person. If there are reliable sources that present a criticism of the living person, these can be indeed added, but not at the expense of the biographical information about the person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bin Laden article is a good example, and I do not see that the article suffers of "siding with its critics". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is indeed non-negotiable, and BLP is an extension of it, same as being an extension of V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But you can see where articles side with critics as in the Uri Geller example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No. BLP is not an extension of NPOV. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material would still need to be taken out even if it is in some fashion compliant with NPOV. The Geller article is well-written and doesn't magically side with the critics. It's simply similar to the Kent Hovind situation where there are many reliable sources which are negative and almost all the reliable sources are negative. The last segment that WAS has referred to is in fact redundant, since no criticism section or any section should ever appear to side with anyone, that would actually be an NPOV violation. And having a lot of criticism listed does not mean it is siding with the critics. It simply means there is a lot of relevant criticism. JoshuaZ 03:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC) (to be clear, I'd favor removal of this section of the policy both so it doesn't lead to confusion like that above and because properly interpreted it is redundant to NPOV). JoshuaZ 03:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Gellar example is indeed odd, and our coverage of odd people is always going to be a little problematic. He's clearly a classic illusionist who goes a little far with the claims of his act. Whether to say that's faking, or merely putting on a stage act, is unclear. It does seem a little extreme to devote so much article space to debunking a "psychic" or magician. How do we handle televangelists who claim to have healing powers or speak with the voice of God? Or professional wrestlers who put on acts that are not, as they say, real? We can report incidents and lawsuits over the issue but it seems over the top for wikipedia to get into the business of debunking. The Kent Hovind article is fascinating - there are plenty of problems with it, but to tell the man's life story is to tell of a lot of incidents and controversies. Wikidemo 03:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In any event, regardless of precisely whether the criticism in both those articles is to the write levels, thats more an issue of NPOV than BLP per my above reasoning. The segment in question is at best redundant. JoshuaZ 03:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

<< I continue to disagree, BLPs should be written in a balanced way as per WP:NPOV (which is non negotiable and which calls to represent fairly and without bias all significant views). Fairly means exactly that, and in BLPs we stress this even further. Articles about living people do not need to be written in a manner that side with a critical view, rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing the point. That's true for all articles anyways. Thus, this is at best redundant. JoshuaZ 18:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Appear to side with the critics" violates NPOV and should be deleted. Perhaps we should replace it with "Articles about living people should not be written in a manner that sides with a critic's view, rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." since that seems to be your point and I think we all agree with that. WAS 4.250 17:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Was's wording makes sense. Another possibility might simply be replacing it with something like "All Wikipedia articles must comply with the neutral point of view and this is especially important for BLPs." or something like that. JoshuaZ 18:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

:: I see WAS' point. Wording tightened. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Stating "All Wikipedia articles must comply with neutral point of view" is useless in BLP disputes. The wording must be very specific as to what that means in the context of a biographical article (as it seems the new wording is). Kaldari 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

More-or-less, but it's not just siding with a critic's view, but siding with the critics in any fashion. As I mentioned above, some critics use only facts. But slavishly repeating facts cited by political hacks by reference to their attack pieces creates a huge POV problem. That's one of the things that was going on with the edit wars over John Stossel - people were citing "watchdog group" articles with names akin to "XXXX caught misrepresenting the facts again." I'm editing this to keep our somewhat broader position. Wikidemo 11:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Death Threats against rugby referee in Wikipedia

I thought you'd like to have a look at this news article [2].

Since the All Blacks have been defeated by France in the Rugby World Cup, some angry fans have been issuing death threats and even a bounty for the head of Wayne Barnes, the referee of the match! You'd be surprised by the usage of Wikipedia by sports fans to express their rage!--Alasdair 18:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This situation is extremely serious. There has been a series of comments requiring Oversight removal and the article has had to be full-protected. Newyorkbrad 19:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with your wikipedia article

I think we should put this section in a more prominent place for people to see, and not in the end of a small guideline for the community that no one will look for it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.190.7 (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Privacy - Discussing financial information

Along with privacy, how about not including personal financial information in an article? For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Jones&oldid=163394231

Why do we need to know the amount held in a person's bank account? -- Glacialfury 19:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For a private person or a public person not involved in a financial or legal public incident; financial privacy makes sense. For Marion Jones it is necessary for the understanding of the context of the criminal allegations, her behavior in not fighting this with million dollar lawyers, and other things about this front page scandal of a public person. WAS 4.250 19:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

All of which is something you'd have to read into. None of that is mentioned; if it's important, weave it in, but in this particular case, I believe it violates privacy. "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." Jimmy Wales. Either way, the policy would benefit by having specific guidelines regarding subject finances. Glacialfury 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The BLP standard in a case like this is that a non-tabloid reliable secondary source say it in a published article about the person and not just as some passing reference. In other words, someone we can trust to make the decision (because they are paid to make these decisions), decided it is not tabloidish and is relevant to an article about the person. So we can rely on their judgement. Which sucks in a way, but is necessary cuz anyone can edit and we are mostly anonymous. Anyway, that seems to be working best so far. Maybe if someone donated a few million dollars for the purpose we could hire some editors and rely more on in-house judgement. WAS 4.250 21:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Maybe you could make an argument for including someone's net worth, but certainly not the contents of his or her bank account. What you're saying is that, because we're not paid, we are unqualified to make judgments about the validity of an inclusion. Assume instead that we are, as a community, an intelligent actor and can judge for ourselves the validity of our users' contributions. Intellectual "worth" should never be based on the availability or amount of a salary - the editors' skills are at issue, and those skills are not validated merely because they are paid, and being a paid editor certainly does not guarantee good judgment or any sort of higher authority. Even reputable sources make poor decisions in their editing from time to time, and rather than playing cow, we should take up the mantle of higher responsibility and hold ourselves to a higher standard. Glacialfury 21:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-controversial information, proposed

The BLP policy mostly deals with controversial information, so this will, hopefully, be a change of pace.

Currently, a sentence reads "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 of the article." This sentence has been around for a long time, and is both quoted and referenced by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. However this doesn't make any exceptions for non-controversial information, or even for expert, highly acclaimed, sources writing non-controversial information. It leads to the interesting case that per the Wikipedia:External links policy, we can link to a site "written by a recognized authority" on our subject, but we can't actually use that site as a source for any information, not even the least controversial. Since most arguments here deal with controversial information, I think this case has merely been overlooked.

Many, possibly most, of our Wikipedia:Featured articles about all but the most notable living persons use expert self-published sources for non-controversial information. Some examples:

KaDee Strickland uses an interview with the subject published on the interviewers' 2-person site to reference 4 non-controversial points. ^ a b c d Davies Brown, Phil. "KaDee Strickland Interview". Horror Asylum. November 12, 2004. Retrieved June 13, 2005.
Miranda Otto writes a film criticism referenced by the critic's personal site: Anderson, Jeffrey M. (April 2002), "To Err Is 'Human'", combustiblecelluloid.com. Retrieved April 11, 2007.
Jackie Chan uses several dedicated fan sites for non-controversial information
- ^ Biography of Jackie Chan. Biography. Hong Kong Film.net. Retrieved on June 6, 2007.
- ^ Jackie Chan. Biography. Ng Kwong Loong (JackieChanMovie.com). Retrieved on July 9, 2007.
- ^ a b c Jackie Chan profile. Biography. JackieChanMovie.com. Retrieved on June 7, 2007.
- ^ Armour of God. jackiechanmovie.com (2006). Retrieved on August 20, 2007.
c cites a "one guy's opinion" film review ^ Swietek, Frank. Day After Tomorrow, The. oneguysopinion.com. Retrieved November 11, 2006.

and so forth.

I ran this question by User:FloNight, who was the toughest Wikipedia:Arbitrator on BLP issues I could think of that I could be sure wouldn't redirect my user page to Clown, and she dwelled on it for over a week, then brought up the additional case of uncontroversial information that should be allowed, that is verifiable, but only through in depth research, for instance in databases, which is generally considered Wikipedia:Original research. She believes such sources should be considered on a case by case basis, which is a fine way to consider them. Disallowing controversial information allows that, since if any given bit of information arouses good faith debate that can't be easily resolved, then it's probably controversial, and we can't use even an expert self-published source for it. I want to write the policy to allow us to consider them on a case by case basis, rather than making a blanket prohibition that we have to ignore all the time.

I propose changing this sentence to read "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial or impossible to verify information about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to note that this and other wikipedia sourcing policies are designed to deal with disputes between editors and are not supposed to be used to make wikipedia worse if all the editors agree that something is true and should be in the article. When someone honestly objects (anon new editors who might be trolling us can't be allowed to use this to make wikipedia worse) and isn't convinced by the evidence and talk, then we must fall back on verifiability, neutrality and sticking to the actual claims in the best sources. WAS 4.250 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. "all the editors agree that something is true and should be in the article" is called Truthiness. :-) We're not supposed to live up to our critics like that. :-) We're writing a policy here. If there were only one or two rare exceptions, that would be one thing, but I think this is a fairly common case, that needs to be put in. I was actually expecting to be attacked by people who disagree, not by those who agree! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Way to go out of your way to misunderstand me. I'm talking about things like adding "(sic)" in a misspelled quote. Some errors are so obvious it is perverse to insist on a reliable source somewhere correcting them. I am also not talking about all=consensus as defined by the article's owners. I mean all as in no one who has made 100 edits ever disagrees. Truthiness is majority rule, not things so bloody obvious only a fool insists on a specific source (as in a misspelling). I am not talking about voting on truth. Understand what I'm saying before you disagree. Its trivial to shoot down a strawman. WAS 4.250 19:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended. I don't think we can trust that anything about WP:BLP is at all obvious. You will notice that it took Flo Night over a week to decide about this. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is not controversial enough to merit discussion. :-) Well, let's put it in, see what happens. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We should not have arguments on BLPs about whether an fact is "controversial" or not. The flat rule we have now is fine because content could only be removed if someone objects, and if someone rejects it's obviously controversial enough that we demand a reliable source. I agree, that non-controversial information could perhaps be cited using databases, primary sources, or other pseudo-OR, but removed blogs should stay removed. Cool Hand Luke 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not true that "The flat rule we have now is fine because content could only be removed if someone objects" because people are deleting things based on policy regardless of whether they agree or disagree citing "wikipedia is not about truth" so we need to clarify that the rules are for dealing with disputes and "truth" is a fine criteria where there is no dispute and was in fact the original criteria for the content of the initial wikipedia articles. It was only with disputes over what is true that it became clear that it was better to argue over sources than argue over "truth". WAS 4.250 17:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, if the best citation we can find is a blog, I think it should be removed, but I like Wikidemo's focus on "derogatory" rather than "controversial." Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I support the proposal. The prohibition on self-published sources is arbitrary anyway. Might as well limit it to contentious or derogatory information, or something like that. We can play with the wording. There's nothing inherently wrong with blogs. The best blogs are far better than the worst print sources. The degree of editorial oversight and expertise and reputation of the writer already factor into the question of how reliable the source is. Wikidemo 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "derogatory" but not with "controversial." The former is less prone to wikilawyering and abuse ("everybody knows" some derogatory things about some people, and I don't want to see talk page arguments about how some negative claims are non-controversial). "Derogatory" is more in tune with the heart of BLP: avoiding libel. Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV requires "controversial" rather than "derogatory" claims to be singled out as especially needing a published reliable source as Wikipedia is NPOV and not SPOV (sympathetic point of view). Fred and Jimbo differed over this so User:Fred Bauder's wiki Wikinfo is SPOV while WikiMedia's Wikipedias are NPOV. It's not up for debate. It is Foundation policy. WAS 4.250 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for this? If the Foundation requires us to exclude "controversial" claims we can exclude them too. However, BLP is bedrock policy and specifically about avoiding USPOV (unsympathetic point of view) and thus inherently SPOV. Jimbo has his hands in this policy as one can see from all the quotes, so I'm sure he's aware of and endorsing the notion that this is about avoiding derogatory info. Wikidemo 23:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think some clarification about "controversial" information would be useful. For example, I'm currently in a debate with someone about WP:NPF, where it says that only information relevant to someone's notability should be included. I'm fine on that, but still feel that a certain reasonable amount of biographical information is appropriate to include (where were they born, which college did they go to, what were their parents' professions). In my opinion, a couple sentences about that kind of info is fine to include, but I've got someone who's going for a literal interpretation of NPF, and is even removing the basic biographical facts since they're "not relevant to notability". So if we had a clarification about the definition of controversial v. innocuous information, that would probably help. --El on ka 04:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that NPOV is about being neutral, but BLP has a different purpose. We can freely include neutral (sometimes derogatory) information, but in the biographies of living people they must be cited solidly. This policy was born out of a problem with libel, not a simple outgrowth of NPOV. It has a different focus. Cool Hand Luke 05:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you accept the compromise of both? "derogatory or controversial"? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of making Cool Hand Luke's argument for him, I think he's saying that banning derogatory information from these self-published sources is an NPOV violation because by eliminating the negative it creates a positive bias in favor of the article subject. He's also objects that "controversial" is too subjective a standard and will only encourage disputes over what is controversial. Both of these are very reasonable objections, and they're not solved by banning both derogatory and controversial information. His solution is to ban all information from self-published sources, which is the status quo. I think that's unduly restrictive and excludes some potentially valuable encyclopedic information, which is why I support the proposal. A good compromise might be to have two mirror-image bans that balance each other, one on derogatory information and the other on lauditory information - the only information allowed from self-published sources would be neutral information that does not cast the subject in either a positive or negative light. That keeps the POV balanced, and it avoids the concern over subjectivity. Of course there's a judgment call to be made whether info is positive or negative, but that's well within the bounds of common sense we can trust editors to have.Wikidemo 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not my argument at all: BLP primarily cares about uncited derogatory junk in accordance with the libel and defamation issues that inspired the policy. I'm therefore not too concerned about banning only derogatory uncited junk.

NPOV is a separate concern, and doesn't care which way the imbalance occurs. An article could probably comply with BLP but fail NPOV if it was unduly laudatory; that's bad, but it's not as bad as having a libelous page. I think the compromise would be perfect. If either condition were true, we should remove the statements. I actually think that only "derogatory" is necessary for the unique BLP concerns, but it is wise to include both per NPOV. I support AnonEMouse's wording. Cool Hand Luke 20:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Whether or not something is laudatory is a rabbit hole I don't want to go down. Arguing about whether or not something is controversial is fairly easy - if there is any reasonable good faith argument to be made that it is, then we've got a controversy, so it clearly is controversial. Arguing about whether or not something is laudatory is much more subjective. I'm fairly open on rephrasing, but just don't want to leave the policy in a state where it says something we clearly don't intend, since our best articles clearly don't follow it. In the end, this isn't a game to see how hard we can make writing articles, our primary task is to write the best articles we can. WP:BLP is supposed to reduce harm to living persons, but it isn't supposed to make writing non-harmful articles harder in general. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jean-Paul Ney‎ article

The Jean-Paul Ney‎ article is sourced primarily from French language sources and I'm not sure of the best way to make sure the sources and content don't violate WP:BLP, I've put in for an RfC on the article and have been looking for a French to English translator, but no luck so far. One of the disputants is making legal threats and the others are claiming the content is validly sourced. I'd like to get more eyes on this. Thanks! Dreadstar † 20:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

privacy

In the worst case, it can be a criminal violation of privacy laws; with the editor who added the information legally liable. Saying that the worse case for an editor violating someone's privacy is that they violate a wikipedia rule is nonsense. WAS 4.250 00:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

For a lot of things, what Wikipedia's BLP policy considers "private" is information that can easily be found in public records, so there is some truth to saying they're only violating Wikipedia's rule. Almost like fair use images, we seem to be far more strict than the law requires us. -- Ned Scott 21:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Mother's maiden name

Perhaps add that adding too much genealogy might reveal the mother's maiden name, -- more identity theft. But this is all security thru obscurity. Jidanni 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much coverd by other parts of BLP. -- Ned Scott 21:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, so are we done with that and ready to deal with my other two edits?

privacy

unclear

Privacy - republishing already-published personal details cannot plausibly be a criminal or a civil violation; logically it cannot be. I don't think we need to go into strained hypotheticals about this. As far as I know, nobody has ever been sued on privacy grounds for a good faith sourced edit to Wikipedia, so we're talking one in a million. We don't need to scare-monger. If you think calling it a violation Wikipedia policies a worst case is inaccurate, we can call it something other than "worst case" or talk about the extra-legal real world consequences.

Privacy is in fact a real legal issue in publicizing private details of non-public persons. That the data can be dug up in some court report or other obscure place does not matter. Also read up on "false light". Privacy is a very important part of this policy and has been from the start. I object to toning down our concerns about privacy. Restore the actual long standing wording about it that preceded the inclusion of this "worse case" terminology. It used to read better. I stop reading this page for a while, come back and find this "worse case" wording inappropriately added. It needs to go. WAS 4.250 04:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That privacy is a real legal issue doesn't mean we should make misstatements about it. The question is moot because we're already banning obscurely sourced and court-reported derogatory material on BLP grounds, among other things because those are not reliable sources. So it's not a question of watering down anything, just of what kind of scary statements we want to make to impress on users that our policy is serious. Nobody is going to jail for a good faith edit to Wikipedia. That's so unlikely as to be far-fetched. Wikidemo 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Real life privacy laws and real life libel laws are some of the reasons for us having a BLP poicy in the first place. Just change the wording back to what it was. WAS 4.250 05:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Jail may seem ridiculous but breaching the law doesn't automatically mean jail in many countries. A fine or community service is a common alternative. Also breaching privacy laws may mean the other party has grounds for a civil case. The reality is, no one knows what's going to happen and breaking policy can in fact get you in deep shit in real life even if editors don't like that. Let's not forget the vandal who lost his job because of the Seigethaler controversy or the vandal who got questioned by the FBI in relation to the WWF guy who killed his family. Then there is the Fuzzy Zoeller case. Yes none of these involve breaching privacy but they do illustrate why it's a fallacy to assume mis-editing wikipedia can't have severe consequences. Of course, BLP isn't just reminding editors their editing may have real life consequences for them, it's also reminding them that their editing may have real life consequence for other people Nil Einne 16:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary / secondary sources. This is the subject of much contentious debate in WP:NOR and I'm not eager to spread that debate to BLP. The consensus, strongly opposed by a minority, is that we make a distinction between primary and secondary sources and secondary sources are preferable. This policy says something specific about that. If we want to change policy, fine. But this is a proposed change, not a clarification.Wikidemo 11:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there is no agreement on the meaning of the sentence. Re-say that sentence in other words. What do you think is the meaning of that sentence? WAS 4.250 04:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It means exactly what it says: "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source."' This is in a section about relatively unknown people. For such people, don't base material on a primary source about the person in question unless (i) they themselves are the source of the information, i.e. a "first person" primary source, or (ii) there is a reliable secondary source to back up the claim. Whether the rule is a good one or not, I have no idea. But figuring out what the rule says is a straightforward matter. Wikidemo 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no agreement on what "primary source" means so explaining the sentence using the phrase that needs explaining is not useful. WAS 4.250 05:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a battle to fight over in WP:NOR, not here. Here, we can assume the validity of other policies and not make changes on the presumption that other policy pages are invalid. Wikidemo 06:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

<<<That's not the issue. The issue is a sentence in this article with an unclear meaning. The meaning is unclear because the term "primary source" has multiple meanings in real life and at Wikipedia. Which meaning is meant here in this sentence in this policy? WAS 4.250 06:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you. It is extremely ambiguous terminology. Gene Nygaard 00:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Danger Will Robinson

I was directed here by the helpful comment from Wikidemo on the page of WP:3RR. Before you proceed applying some sort of 3RR procedure to BLPs, please note the copyright violations you may incur. The term 3RR is in fact the 3 rules of robotics. We must therefore have policies such as these speedied since they are a copyvio and a potential liabiliy for the WM foundation. (Please note though that rather sadly such BLP policy no longer applies to Asimov) Please see WP:CSD#G12 for more information, or leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions. Oh no, I'm about to forget my signature! SineBot Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.236.33 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is, I assume, some sort of satire? If taken seriously, one should note that copyright does not apply to a 3-character acronym, but only to a much longer work that might include it. Trademark law might apply, but I don't know of the abbreviation "3RR" actually being trademarked by Asimov, his estate, or anybody else for referring to his three laws of robotics, which, in any case, have no connection to our 3 Revert Rule. *Dan T.* 22:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

However, the Wikimedia Foundation might be infringing on the intellectual rights of Asimov's "Encyclopedia Foundation", especially if it harbors hidden goals of ultimately conquering the galaxy and bringing about a new Galactic Empire. *Dan T.* 22:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the "3 rules of Robotics" has passed into the public domain since Asimov allowed other writers to use (and quote) the concept quite freely in their own fiction. I understand that Asimov also promoted the discussion/use of 3RR in the artificial intelligence field in real life. Note that nobody considers geo stationary telecommunication satellites a possible copy-vio, even though it was proposed and named in an Arthur C Clarke book (I forget which one). LessHeard vanU 22:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR exclusion

User:John Broughton has boldly proposed this change twice, claiming it puts WP:BLP into conformity with WP:3RR.

I don't know the history of how this came to be on either page, but the wording is important and has stood here for a while, so we should treat this as a proposal to evaluate and adopt if we have consensus, notwithstanding any conflict between the two policies. WP:BLP is as much a bedrock policy as WP:3RR, and because this policy goes to substance whereas 3RR goes to procedure, I would think this one is primary on this particular subject.

The point of excepting removal of unsourced derogatory information "immediately", "without discussion", and without regard to 3RR is that we're dealing with potential liable claims, and possible undue harm to people's real world reputations, two matters that go beyond the day to day concerns of Wikipedia editing. So we allow people to take unilateral, non-consensus actions to avoid libel. There is no such justification for encouraging unilateralism when removing neutral or positive statements.

The limited exception to 3RR is necessary perhaps in extreme cases, but even that is problematic. The one time I ever "broke" 3RR to remove what I saw as defamatory information, I quickly got a 3RR "take it back or you'll be blocked" warning from an aggrieved edit warrior, and some sage advice from an experienced administrator that I was on shaky ground and that no matter how much you think it's a BLP issue someone is bound to block you for doing that. In other words, this is dangerous territory. We should probably limit the exception to the bare minimum needed to avoid libel instead of giving people another justification for getting into a revert war.

If people agree, let's confirm that, and then update WP:3RR to conform. If people support John Broughton's change, then say so and we'll implement it. I don't have a terribly strong opinion on this, just want to follow procedure and think things over before changing policy. Wikidemo 15:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What shouldn't be done is to have two policies with conflicting statements, as was the case before I made my change. Here's the wording from WP:3RR, under the section pertaining to exceptions: reverts to remove ... unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons. (emphasis added.) I note that the qualifier "derogatory", which I removed from the WP:BLP policy, isn't in the 3RR policy, so my removal of it from this policy made the two consistent.

A broad exception to the 3RR rule for BLP violations is only a potential problem for admins enforcing the 3RR rule. If the admins at that page don't have any problem with broad exception, then why should anyone else object. And if they do have a problem, then presumably there would be a consensus, at that page', to change it.

In short, this page is the wrong page to have a discussion about whether the exception should be narrow (derogatory only) or broad (all contentious/controversial information that is unsourced or poorly sourced). I suggest that another editor make this policy consist with WP:3RR, and then that this discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule if someone wants to argue (there) that the 3RR policy should be narrowed (for the benefit of admins dealing with 3RR cases).

If the policy at WP:3RR is changed, then of course I would support changing this policy to match it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR refers to this page. It's pretty clear (to me) that 3RR is meant as a summary of this page. Hence we decide on this page, then propagate the results to 3RR. Wikidemo 13:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Having seen no other editor weigh in on this, I'll start (or continue) the discussion here. Your argument for not allowing a 3RR revert exception for neutral or positive information seems to be this: There is no such justification for encouraging unilateralism when removing neutral or positive statements. I disagree - let me offer one. It's a week before an election, and someone inserts the following into a biography of a leading candidate:

As mayor, he was successful in lowering crime rates by more than 10 percent during his four years in office. Though number of city employees decreased, independent evaluations of city services found that they had markedly improved. His reorganization of the school system yielded large increases in graduation rates over the next decade.

Do you think that the appropriate response to such a post is to put "citation needed" tags on each statement and wait a couple of weeks for the editor who posted it to provide sources? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If (allegedly) poorly sourced information has been reverted three times and then inserted again three times, then if the material is non-derogatory the party that wants to remove it should try an approach other than reverting a fourth time, which would give rise to a potential 3RR complaint, a block, a request for unblock, page protection, and contentious arguments over behavioral meta-issues that don't solve the question about whether the information should be there or not. A fact tag is one option, but so is talking on the talk page, bringing it up on BLP notice board, a request for mediation, finding a source, or just waiting for 24 hours (which sounds pointless at first, but a 24 hour rest can sometimes give people enough time to figure it out). Wikidemo 08:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What you're saying is that in the case of positive, controversial/contentious unsourced information about a person, a revert war could well occur, with no interference by administrators (as long as no single editor exceeds 3 reverts within 24 hours); whichever side has the most editors wins (unless an admin locks down the page, in which case whichever side benefits by the the wrong version being protected will have won).

Yes, I'm aware of all the other options for resolving disputes, but in the case I posited, the side posting the unsourced positive information has no particular reason (assuming that a reliable source is in fact unavailable) to do anything but drag their feet until after the election. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You could say that about 3RR and any controversial edit. One side can always go up to the limits of 3RR and count on forcing the other to back down for fear of a 3RR violation. We can't write all the policies to be immune from this kind of wikigaming, and in fact suspending 3RR encourages more of it, not less. 3RR is a boundary issue to keep a lid on contentious editing, not a technicality. Wikidemo 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Negative assertations by primary sources

I got pulled into a conflict on Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda. It's currently up for AfD here. I'm extremely concerned about this article. Basically, a group of university researchers compiled a list of people that the US government had stated were terrorists, and then published the list in the form of a study. It ended up on this article, as a complete list of names of living people, and groups, which I redacted here per BLP. My concern is that we have a page labeling many people as "terrorists", when we have only a single primary source for it: the US government, which in turn was rewritten and collected by the researchers, and then reposted here on Wikipedia. We have (as of yet, despite my asking) no reliable 3rd party sources that these people are terrorists.

My concern: if we have any single primary source saying something extremely negative about someone/some group, shouldn't it be excluded unless there are multiple reliable sources also asserting it? If, for example, some random newspaper says that celebrity X is anorexic, but no one else reports on it, shouldn't we exclude it? If Saudi Arabia's military department labeled a C.I.A. agent named Stan Smith a terrorist (but no one else reported on it), would we then include Stan Smith on List of Terrorists? I'm concerned if I am interpreting this all correctly. I don't think we should be listing any names on that article, without 3rd party sourcing. • Lawrence Cohen 16:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

we are not saying they are terrorists we are saying that person X called them a terrorist.Geni 02:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you say that was the wording of this version of the article, before I refactored the list? My concern is that by presenting this information we're functionally saying "these guys are/are involved with" terrorism. • Lawrence Cohen 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourcewatch

I'm thinking about removing external links and all non-qualified citations (that is, all controversial assertions, but not things like "Sourcewatch...criticized...") from BLPs. I think that WP:EL and WP:BLP support this as the site is a somewhat ideological wiki. However, this would be an enormous shift—tons of BLPs link to sourcewatch.[3] See also relevant prior discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 19#Template:SourceWatch and Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 17#Linking to external wikis. Are there any reservations? Cool Hand Luke 20:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Are there tons of links? I see a dozen or so. Agreed, sourcewatch is not a reliable source given its lack of editorial control and potential for instability of article content. Moreover, it would tend to fail the external link guideline because it mostly points to information that could be included in Wikipedia if someone bothered to expand the article. I would remove it as a citation and as an external link to any information about controversies involving living people, but leave in anything uncontroversial, e.g. the citation in the Andrew Nagorski biography. That isn't ideal. The writer should have chased the sourcewatch article down to see where they got the information about his leave of absence, and used that as a direct source rather than going through a wiki as an intermediate source. But if you remove it without replacing it with a better citation that might do more harm than good. Wikidemo 21:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, most are under www.sourcewatch.org There are over 1000 links total just through "M".[4] I agree with you; uncontroversial things, or news coverage having to do with sourcewatch itself can stay, but I think it looks too falsely authoritative for an external link and that it's unreliable as a BLP source. Cool Hand Luke 21:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly argue, though, against simply going through and removing links to Sourcewatch articles wholesale; instead, you should look at the Sourcewatch articles themselves, and take the relevent sources from them, replacing our cite to Sourcewatch with those (and removing the cite if Sourcewatch had no useful sources itself.) Simply removing Sourcewatch citations when Sourcewatch itself has a source that backs up the relevent claim strikes me as a somewhat destructive way of solving the problem, when we could easily be using a better source instead. (It should also be noted that since it is under the GDFL, we can incorperate Sourcewatch text directly into Wikipedia when it is relevent, although naturally in that case it has to comply with Wikipedia standards, including the citation of sources other than Sourcewatch. In fact, in places where Sourcewatch has relevent text that you believe fits Wikipedia standards, that may be the better option, since it allows future editors to consider, expand, and edit it along Wikipedia lines, and avoids making us responsible for any of Sourcewatch's future instability as a Wiki.) --Aquillion 23:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What about bios where it is not cited in the article, but is listed in EL? Remove it? - Dean Wormer 03:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... that's a tricker question. Wikis are allowed as external sources, but somewhat discouraged unless they're large, established, and stable. I think Sourcewatch is relatively established and stable as far as wikis go, so we can link to it... but WP:EL also notes that things should be linked if they can't be directly included in the article for whatever reason; in other words, if a Sourcewatch article is good enough to use as an external link, it's probably good enough for us to just take the relevent parts (with their sources) and put them in the article, at which point we don't need to link to Sourcewatch anymore (of course, attribution with something like Template:SourceWatch_text is also needed.) Links to Sourcewatch in external links shouldn't just be taken out because they're links to sourcewatch, but if there's things that can be incorporated from them then that's probably the route to go... and if there's nothing worth incorperating, what are they adding as an external link? There may be a few cases where they go into more detail on something than would be desirable in the article, though... in that case they could be kept as a link. --Aquillion 04:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of these are ELs, not citations. I think the WP:EL policy aims for reliability more than stability, and POV links are also disfavored. Sourcewatch fails on both counts. For the same reason, I think incorporating often-unverified material from Sourcewatch is not only unwise, it's a BLP violation. If users find individual sourcewatch pages helpful, they should independently source and incorporate the content. Cool Hand Luke 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcewatch is a wiki of extremely varying quality. Even a minor examination of the wiki reveals a very strong political, anti-authoritarian, fringe, conspiracy theory, and often pro-alternative agenda. Sometimes it seems more like a blog or discussion list with a mixture of some good and informative articles alongside sketchy comments more like the notes quickly jotted on the back of a napkin, or a grocery list, or even an unfinished "to do" list in article space. I have seen articles in all those states at the site, with direct repetitions of libelous conspiracy theories (naming people who are in court suing other people for making precisely those false charges other places) allowed to stay there for a long time. Enormous BLP issues! It is not a reliable source in any sense, and especially in the Wikipedia sense, and not just because it's a wiki. No fact checking or editorial oversight, just an anti-authoritarian agenda. It seems that anything is allowed under the device "if it's against our enemies it must be OK." Since the articles are of such varying quality over time and from moment to moment, it would be best to use the original sources of good information, but not use Sourcewatch itself. It is even more unstable than Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a RS by its own standards, so Sourcewatch would be even less eligible as a RS than Wikipedia. -- Fyslee/talk 07:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that Sourcewatch was so unstable and unreliable. I'm not sure how it got added to so many articles, but it's now ubiquitous. Earlier this year I was in a disagreement with another editor who appeared to be removing external links to Sourcewatch from a number of article because they weren't neutral. I thought that wasn't an adequate reason and that they shouldn't be deleted without discussion. I'm now less trusting of the site, and I won't defend it any longer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

External links to Sourcewatch have been ubiquitous here from the early days of both wikis. Originally, Sourcewatch was called "Disinfopedia" and its founder was a prominent early major contributor to Wikipedia. In fact, he is said to have coined the term "Wikimedia". Mike R 14:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcewatch is not a reliable source. As such, it should be removed immediately, per this policy. Vassyana 07:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

given it's pretty wide use the consensus position appears to be that there is not a problem. The box at the top of the page claims it has consensus. Are you argueing for the removal of that box?Geni 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "box" you are referring to, but it looks like a reexamination of the real situation at Sourcewatch is producing a changing consensus here. Long time use is not a good reason for not changing our position. It's actually a terrible reason! Common sense also tells us not to rely on it as a source, except in an article about itself. Wikipedia only accepts the use of very few extremely tightly controlled wikis without public access, and Sourcewatch doesn't fit the bill in any sense. Just to see an example of how it is used as a base for personal messages of a dubious nature from an adversary, try this one. It's a personal message that recommends a book that has been sued for libelous and undocumented conspiracy theories involving named people and the organization. The inclusion of that message was fortunately modified to some degree by this comment, but it's still there with it's untruths. If Wikipedia is open about its own lack of status as a RS by its own standards (and it does), then how can we use an open source wiki that allows this type of thing? It is obviously even less a RS than Wikipedia. -- Fyslee/talk 17:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The box that says this is a policy based on consensus. Or do you think half a dozen people here can overturn the kind of consensus that would be required to place the link in over a thousand articles?Geni 02:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I find this to be a strange comment. So far, it seems that just 2 users have cleared the links through "C" and there's surprisingly little resistance. I think this reflects a practical consensus that everyone can live with. I also think it shows that this was an emerging trend anyway. In controversial biographies where this is debated, editors have generally opted to remove the link to Sourcewatch.

This evolving consensus makes sense. BLPs are the gold standard of policy compliance. Normally, when we find a dubious claim we add {{fact]] to it, but in BLPs we remove the text first to avoid legal and personal problems. One can argue that we should first incorporate the off-wiki content that we're de-linking, but this isn't how we normally proceed on BLPs. They should be removed first, and used later as appropriate. I am replacing references, and I think a perusal of my edits should convince you that we're going about this in a conscientious way. Cool Hand Luke 07:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Well, maybe we should begin removing it from BLPs. I think sourcewatch might still be a valuable link for organizations, especially political ones—political organizations make claims about each other all the time, and I don't think it's as big a deal as potentially linking libel. When removing the link, we should make a note like "Removing unreliable source per BLP, but feel free to independently cite and include any material that may help improve this article, see WT:BLP#Sourcewatch." This way editors will not simply revert the removal, but will try to patch any holes in the articles and can participate in a centralized discussion here. We should also take time to adequately source existing claims whenever possible. If they can't be sourced, we should remove them, but we should at least try to find reliable sources for existing content. Any last reservations before I start? Cool Hand Luke 01:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel direct untruths in edit summeries should be avoided. External links are not sources.Geni 02:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So "source" or "external link" as the case may be. Cool Hand Luke 02:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll reiterate again: Citations and external links are very different things. Sourcewatch is plainly not suitable to be used as a citation, although I would strongly oppose wholesale removal when the sourcewatch page itself has sources that can be used to replace it -- but it is a perfectly usable external link in most situations, the only question being how established and stable it is as a wiki. None of the other things you have said about it matter in an external link; they are allowed to hold POVs and to be harshly critical of the article's subject (indeed, the only place where a sourcewatch article is likely to be useful as an external link is when it is critical of the article's subject.) Despite its other limitations, Sourcewatch is usually well-referenced, and it is a fairly longstand wiki. Individual Sourcewatch pages may not be suitable, but the only reason to go out and remove large numbers of them is because you are incorporating their relevent text in the article itself, since that is the only major problem the site poses as an external link. --Aquillion 18:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Their content could be used here, WP:EL #1, it's not reliable, #2, and it's a poorly-patrolled partisan wiki, #13. If users feel the content is valuable, they're free to use it in some way. I think that BLP and EL both lean against inclusion, and it appears that Sourcewatch has been removed from the most high-profile pages here because they don't have a policy anything like BLP. Frankly, some of their content comes close to slander, and there's no good reason to keep the links to their wiki. For BLPs, I think that's reason to remove; we play it safe for living people. I think the links are fine on non-biographies. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Non biographies should be fine, but biographies, especially living people, should go. Dean Wormer 05:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a couple of dozen ELs over the past 24 hours, using the suggested message above as an edit summary. No reverts so far. Many of them are Congress members, with external links to sourcewatch's Congresspedia. Just want to confirm that these also should be removed before I get too far. It's a big list. I did run across a few bios that are GFDL copies of content from sourcewatch, but they do cite the sources. There are also the odd paragraphs that are attributed to sourcewatch. Those will have to be ferreted out. I'm focusing on the ELs for now. Dean Wormer 03:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think we should do this (but you already knew that). I plan to start working on ELs and citations tomorrow night. I agree that copied text is not a priority. Text would eventually melt into the articles by themselves, and I think it's not a bad interim solution if users think some Sourcewatch content is especially important. Eventually I think we should rewrite these too, to satisfy the appearance of NPOV if nothing else. Cool Hand Luke 04:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There's certainly no requirement that all EL's go to sites that, themselves, comply with NPOV. We ext link to many ideologically oriented sites. SourceWatch shouldn't be singled out for removal. I agree with the approach of grabbing anything useful from the current text of the SourceWatch article, but the advantage of the EL is that, like any wiki, SourceWatch is constantly evolving. A reader who follows that link six months from now may find useful information that isn't in the SourceWatch article today.

Citation of SourceWatch as support for a specific assertion is a different matter. We can ext link to a site that doesn't comply with WP:NPOV, but we can't rely on a citation that doesn't meet WP:RS. SourceWatch often (but not always) would fail that test. JamesMLane t c 07:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

SourceWatch clearly fails to be a reliable source. It lacks the editorial oversight and the reputation for accuracy required of reliable sources. Could it possibly be accurate or correct in some cases? Sure it can. That doesn't mean it's a reliable source. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, as they say. Additionally, WP:EL advises against linking to inaccurate/unreliable sites and open wikis. Vassyana 09:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcewatch always fails RS, like any wiki, including this one. It sometimes, however, links to a reliable source, and in those cases we should just go to the horse's mouth. I think that it fails EL for at least three reasons, outlined above, and WP:EL's suggested links to include clearly show that partisan wikis are not the kind of sites contemplated by the guideline. I find it problematic in the case of BLPs. We have a hard enough time keeping libel off our own site, and linking to a site with their reputation seems negligent if we care about the BLP policy. Cool Hand Luke 16:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between using SourceWatch as a reference and just including it in external links. Where is the policy against linking to well referenced articles on other sites? We could go to the horses mouth and include all the links and information that SourceWatch does, but we don't, and we never will include the massive number of links to articles, nor the images. So don't delete all the links without considering each one individually. I came here from Scott Parkin. Please tell me what's wrong with the SourceWatch article. —Pengo 22:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an open wiki. WP:EL does not allow links to any and all sites that might be useful, but only those that are reliable content that could not be added here. As an open partisan wiki which is only useful insofar that it cites its sources, it fails WP:EL, especially considering that the content uses the same license we have. Fails WP:EL links to avoid #1, 2, and 13, as stated above, and is especially suspect on biographies of living people. Cool Hand Luke 00:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Luke. Sourcewatch does not comply with our BLP standards overall. But any sourced content that does meet Wikipedia standards can be copied directly under GFDL, or cleaned up for NPOV, etc. We can use Sourcewatch to make Wikipedia better (as they can use us), but we shouldn't be linking to it in BLP articles. I've been leaving it alone in articles about organizations or other non-biography subjects. Dean Wormer 01:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"a manner that does not overwhelm the article"

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to 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.

This phrase is becoming a problem. See, for example, the John Stossel, David Vitter, and Larry Craig articles. Editors seem to have no problem determining what is and is not relevant to someone's notability, or sourced to reliable sources, or appearing to side with critics. However, there seem to be vastly divergent opinions on how much criticism is too much. This has led to edit wars, page protections, and accusations of incivility.

What is the solution here? To quantify the limit in terms of a percentage of bytes devoted to criticism? Te require that criticism is only allowed a single TOC heading? Something else? Acct4 23:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The solution is to find common ground with active editors on these articles. If you cannot find that common ground, involve other editors via our dispute resolution process. You can start by asking a third opinion, or placing a request for comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to reflect the sum total of the way the world sees someone. Not just today's newspapers, but the way the world saw them over the course of their lives. For example, OJ Simpson, above on this page; currently he's most famous, or infamous, for the Nicole Brown Simpson trials, but for a long time he was highly notable as a football star, and then for a while, slightly notable as a minor actor. We need to write about all that in proportion, not through the lenses of today's hottest news. Imagine you're reading the article from the viewpoint of 100 years later, and the "top stories" of 2007 are no more important than the "top stories" of 1987. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that's good advice. In 100 years do you think anyone will remember the legislative accomplishments of Craig or Vitter relative to their scandals? Acct4 04:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well they won't if if everyone bows to ratings pressure and only covers scandal. I think there is a tendency sometimes to think that the impact a person has is well represented in the high profile news reporting about them, and I don't think that always serves our encyclopedic purpose well. Although, for instance, Vitter and Craig may well be more likely to be referred to in many general publications in the future for the scandals they were involved in, their impact in terms of actually affecting people's lives is going to be in the legislation they helped to pass (or block) and the way they influenced public debate. In this instance, as an encyclopedia we should probably be looking more to the balance of opinion of political scientists rather than news journalists to determine what an appropriate balance in the article should be. Not that the scandals won't be big things - but they are often blown out of proportion in terms of public coverage and I don't think we should follow that standard. -- SiobhanHansa 16:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Scandals fade more than you think. Most people would be hard pressed to remember most scandals from the 1990s, much less the decade 1900-1910. Wikidemo 22:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think in 100 years people will remember their legislative accomplishments as well as their scandals. Remember this guy called Oscar Wilde? He had a huge scandal almost exactly 100 years ago. People remember it, but they also remember The Importance of Being Earnest, and Lady Windermere's Fan and The Happy Prince, and ... At a similar time Émile Zola was involved in a scandal, fled the country to avoid going to jail. Did The Dreyfus Affair make people forget Les Rougon-Macquart? More recently, Richard Nixon is certainly remembered for Watergate, but he is also remembered for establishing the EPA, opening to China, war with Vietnam... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements"

My attention was drawn to this by a change made to WP:RS in order to bring language there more into line with language here. The language here seems to me to be illogical, though. Are controversial statements necessarily unverifiable? Are derogatory statements necessarily unverifiable? I think not. -- Boracay Bill 23:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a compromise made by a committee. :-). You'll see the discussion above. The meaning is supposed to be that we can't use controversial statements, and we can't use derogatory statements, and we can't use statements that can't, in theory, be somehow looked up in other places (usually primary sources). I'd be all for improving the phrasing if we can keep the meaning (and therefore preserve the compromise). How about:

controversial, or derogatory, or otherwise impossible to verify statements
statements that are controversial, or derogatory, or impossible to verify otherwise

Do either of those convey the meaning better? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, controversial statements are not unverifiable, but for the biographies of living people we have to get it right; there's a higher standard here. Elsewhere, we could probably just get by with the fact that impossible-to-verify statements are in fact unverified. Cool Hand Luke 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I see what you mean now. I the word "otherwise" implies that the first two share the trait of the third. In that case, AnonEMouse's second alternative should clarify the language nicely. Cool Hand Luke 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing content from Google

Google has apparently become tighter about removing URLs from their index. Previously I saw that anyone could nominate a URL to be removed, but now it appears that only site owners can request removal of URLs associated with the site(s) they have verified as owning. It would be desirable to expedite the removal of deleted content, in particular articles about living persons which have been deleted, from the Google page index. Has there been discussion on this point previously? If not, is this something that would be generally considered beneficial to pursue? For more information on removing content from Google, see http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/topic.py?topic=8459, http://www.google.com/intl/en/contact/index.html and, more specifically, http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=64033&topic=8459. Considering the position of Wikipedia relative to Google, it might even be worthwhile to consider an expedited automated removal process through an agreement between the Wikimedia Foundation and Google Inc. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be especially sensible for CSD#10 ("attack pages"). I've never understood why google lists (and caches) deleted content for so long. Maybe the developers could make a check box which would automatically put in a google de-listing when deleting a page. That is, in addition to the reason for deletion and "watch this page" there would be a check box "delist from google." Cool Hand Luke 00:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Contact Information, revisited

I would like to question the wisdom of always excluding contact information in BLPs. Specifically, the BLP for Leo Kuvayev used to have his email address. I think that for articles such as that, the email addresses should be included. I say this not in hopes of retaliation against him (as obviously that is futile through email), but rather because it is useful for identifying things that are his responsibility. Namely, as Mr. Kvayev is a computer criminal, domains that are sold to him include his email address (while other information is often obfuscated). If the email addresses that he has used are left in the article, it aids in the identification of domains that have been sold to him. 24.58.33.115 —Preceding comment was added at 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't give out email addresses of any individual on Wikipedia articles. Neil ☎ 22:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no hard rule for that, and like any piece of information, it depends if the information is relevant. That being said, I don't think it would be relevant in this case (though I could be wrong), but for many people there likely won't be an issue with such information (many of which have their e-mail address listed on their personal web pages, which we often include). -- Ned Scott 02:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I really do think that having at least his past email addresses would be valuable, as it would show one of the ways that this person attempts to hide from pursuit. Even if the article said something like "Mr. Kuvayev has used numerous email addresses in the past for registration that have subsequently been shut down, including aaa@bbb.com, bbb@ccc.com, ... some of which also corresponded to domains that he purchased". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.33.115 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can see the logic in that, and it sounds like we are talking about e-mail addresses that are no longer active, and were public when they were active. I'm still not sure if it's useful to say it in the article, but I can understand your argument to include them. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting sources?

I'm sure there must be guidelines for dealing with instances where there are conflicting realible sources on a particular biographical point, but i can't for the life of me find any guidance on here. Could anyone point me in the right direction? Amo 07:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV that applies to all articles, including BLPs as it pertains to the description of competing significant viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Jimmy Wales cites

This has been previously discussed. Please do not delete these cites as these were instrumental in the making of BLP into official policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Then feel free to put it in another section, but it is misleading and dishonest to let people think that the quote is in context to presuming privacy. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You could have done that yourself ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth I've moved the three Jimmy Wales quotations into a new template I created called Template:Jimboquote. If people like it, Jimbo quotes across policy pages can be standardized so everybody can tell at a glance that it's a Jimbo quote. I thought that was worth doing to avoid confusion, and because Jimbo's pronouncements have a special role vis-a-vis Wikipedia policy. If we want we can set them off with a special color, logo, font, alignment, etc. I'm not terribly happy with the color but the template is unprotected so anyone is free to change it. Wikidemo 04:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry.. I was.. a bit worked up? I should have just moved it, like you said.. -- Ned Scott 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

2007 Royal blackmail plot

The Royal involved in 2007 Royal blackmail plot is not being named in the UK due to a legal injunction. However, perfectly reliable US and Australian sources are suggesting the same name. Does BLP preclude any mention in articles, not that he was involved but that he was reported as being involved? TerriersFan 20:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I (as a brit) don't see a problem - wikipedia is not subject to UK law and long as normal BLP policy is followed, then no issues should result. --Fredrick day 20:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

From a legal perspective there's no problem. But from a what we are perspective, if we're really not confident enough of the sources to say it is him - it's more gossip than encyclopedic. Few royals lead discreet enough lives that naming them is problematic form a privacy perspective, and the only real reason this is significant is because of who is involved. The question is, is it really solid info yet, or should we be waiting instead of rushing? I don't think it's appropriate to just name suspects, but if non-English papers really know who it is and they're printing - then there's no reason to keep it out. -- SiobhanHansa 15:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no much that can be done. It is already here: Viscount Linley. I will redirect the stub. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Images of living people

An issue came up regarding the photo of a living person appearing in an article that caused a problem, that may be best resolved by an amendment to WP:BLP. Before describing the problem, let me describe my proposed amendment:

"Recognizable images of living people must not be included in articles about controversial subjects, unless there are strong reliable sources to associate the person with the subject. This is especially true for articles describing a term of disparagement or an unpopular point of view, and must be honored even if the identity of the persons depicted is unknown."

A relevant BLP noticeboard thread touches on the incident that prompted this.

What recently happened is that a living person found that a picture of himself that he uploaded and freely licensed himself appeared in the Anti-Mormon article, and he objected to this. His objections were ignored, and he was understandably angered. So he listed his own image at IfD, and five people said "KEEP!". One administrator came along, saw a problem, and did what he thought best: he simply deleted the image.

The image deletion came at the expense of a community resource and is a destructive precedent to set. If WP:BLP had a provision that allowed for the image to be removed from the article without much protest, the issue would have never gotten this far.

Further, the issue is bound to come up again and again. What happens if a black man one day gets on Wikipedia and finds that his image was featured in the Nigger article for years and nobody said anything? You'd hope that the man didn't call a lawyer. The mere unwanted association of an image with a topic is a form of disparagement that must be addressed by WP:BLP so that these can be proactively removed instead of being found by surprise by the living subjects themselves. Reswobslc 16:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading the Noticeboard thread, I think this sounds like a very good idea. Not only is the image deletion a "destructive precedent," but it also presents some major problems with GFDL. If a person is in a public place when the image is taken and/or the image was released by his/herself, then there is no basis in either Wikipedia policy or in copyright law for deleting the image. However, associating that image with a particular topic could be construed as libelous, even if the person depicted has no direct say over how the image is used.

From a technical standpoint, deleting that image was out of process and against policy. And yet I think the admin did what needed to be done, since there were potential legal issues here. I think you are totally right that a clause needs to be added to WP:BLP to make the remedy to such an issue explicit: One does not have the right to have an image of oneself removed from Wikipedia (assuming copyright and privacy issues are satisfied, of course), but one does have the expectation that the image will not be used in a potentially libelous way. --Jaysweet 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the wording helps all that much, since there could be reliable sources associating the name negatively with the subject, and yet still invoke a serious tort claim against Wikipedia. The manner of the association described by the source needs to be made more explicit. Quatloo 17:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you suggest an improvement to the wording? I targeted this wording towards the inappropriate unsourced association of often unnamed people in articles (like the evangelist photo in Anti-Mormon), not inclusions for which sources are provided. Anyone can sue anybody for anything anytime - the point of this is to empower editors to remove things that will antagonize living people before they're found by those people - and not to create a defense to an imaginary potential lawsuit. Reswobslc 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the liability issue is at least as important as the offensiveness issue. For instance, the Mel Gibson article contains a section about accusations of antisemitism, all of which is well sourced, so it stands up to WP:BLP. But if I were to put a photo of Gibson in Antisemitism with the caption, "Mel Gibson has been accused of antisemitism," that could be construed as libelous -- even though the accusations of antisemitism are well documented and mentioning them is not libel in and of itself, placing Gibson's image in the Antisemitism article would be an implicit endorsement of those accusations, which is not only NPOV but also libelous.

Now, something that blatant would probably get reverted right away anyway. But it would not technically be a violation of WP:BLP at present time -- and I think it should.

Maybe something like this: "Images of living persons should generally be avoided in articles dealing with controversial subject matter, unless the person is specifically mentioned in the article (and in a manner that does not otherwise violate WP:BLP) or no better image exists." That would have covered the Anti-Mormon example, because there was already a picture of demonstrably anti-Mormon protesters (the sign sorta gives it away, heh), and one in which faces are not clearly visible. --Jaysweet 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Given that the administrator was acting out of process, and that if he were to follow process he probably would have simply removed the image from the article, is there really a problem we need to address? Does this come up often enough to be part of policy? If so, I would suggest using some words like "generally" or "reasonably", etc., because one can always find exceptions. For instance, it might be appropriate to include a photo of the OJ simpson trial in which the judge, various lawyers, witnesses, etc., are recognizable. Or an image of a controversial accident that shows the investigators, police, bystanders, and (subject to some different BLP concerns) surviving victims. The point is that their inclusion in the photo does not cast them in a negative light. On the opposite end, say, an image taken from a security camera that shows a crime taking place shouldn't include any identifiable people who haven't been implicated because people might make an incorrect assumption. And indeed, per the example given here one should not use a picture of someone who hasn't given a right of privacy/publicity release to make them stand for something other than what's really happening in the image. A picture of a woman at a beach should not be used to illustrate the article on blond hair - she hasn't agreed to be the Wikipedia blond hair model. If she's released all her rights and the image is clip art, yes. A candid shot, no. Wikidemo 20:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If the admin were to have removed the image from the article (as opposed to the out-of-process deletion), what policy would he/she cite? I think that's the problem here... --Jaysweet 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding breaking the law? Privacy (right of publicity, really, but they're related)? Editorial discretion? Wikidemo 22:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Avoid breaking who's law, and who decides whether something is against the law? We are asking editors to get into some unqualified lawyering with something like this. That's why there's policies in the first place. Reswobslc 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Editorial discretion. We don't need alphabet soup in order to improve articles. Cool Hand Luke 00:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but the uploader of that image should not have met resistance when he asked for it to be removed. Had there been a policy in place, it could have been cited as reason for removal. Reswobslc 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to cite a policy in order to edit an article. I think that some of the editors were being a bit unkind about it, but that's no reason to extend this policy to non-biographical information. Cool Hand Luke 02:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But when the change gets reverted five times by four different people for four different reasons? Then something is obviously wrong. Reswobslc 02:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, anyone can upload this again. It was cc-by-2.5. I agree with the "out of process" deletion, however: it's not really encyclopedic. Just a family snapshot. Cool Hand Luke 00:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and the administrator who unilaterally deleted it will probably unilaterally block whoever does that, for which they will have no recourse other than to suck it up. Doing that is tantamount to reverting against consensus, and if the consensus I think you're trying to promote is for nobody to give a crap, then that really isn't helping anything. There is nothing to gain from essentially suggesting "if you don't like it, revert it". Reswobslc 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the proposal as phrased. It's too broad. We have photos of large numbers of protesters in the Abortion article, and Pro-life leads with a picture of recognizable but individually non-notable people. These issues are clearly controversial, but the article wouldn't really be complete without them; the fact that the issue drives huge crowds of ordinary people out onto US streets carrying signs is a very important part of the articles. We have large numbers of similar protester pictures in Protest (shocking, I know). Also Million Man March, March 17, 2007 anti-war protest, September 24, 2005 anti-war protest, and so forth and so on. Dozens of them, if the pattern holds up. We can't make a blanket condemnation of pictures of people in controversial articles, in many cases the pictures are the best possible illustration that can be imagined. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. No policy is needed here, just common sense. Cool Hand Luke 01:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Common to whom? In India common sense says eat horses and not cows. In the US, common sense says eat cows and not horses. To me, common sense says that a policy that results in the deletion of community property on one guy's whim is a bad idea. To you, perhaps nothing's wrong, so perhaps your common sense says to sit on your hands and everything will be OK. Either there is a potential problem or there is not. If there is a problem, please contribute to its solution instead of criticizing a proposal offering nothing better. Reswobslc 01:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There's sound reason to remove a low-quality photo when the contributer doesn't like it. This was the commonsensical result, and it's what ultimately happened. See also WP:DICK. Might have been different if the picture was high-quality, and in that case there's no reason to carve a hole in policy to accommodate protesters. I think it would be dangerous to do so, for the reasons AnonEMouse articulates. Cool Hand Luke 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the uncommonsensical result was that it was removed and put back in no less than FIVE times due to lack of guidance on the subject (removal, restoration, removal, restoration, removal, restoration, removal, restoration, removal). And I speak as one of those people who argued both sides of the fence. You speak only as a Monday morning quarterback. This has nothing to do with being a WP:DICK or the "quality" which is subjective. With a policy, the image would have been removed and put back ZERO times, thus not antagonizing the subject in the first place. Reswobslc 02:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the edit history, but your proposal would compel removal of images that should not be removed.

Look edit wars happen, but they don't compel this policy (which is just as likely as any to cause edit wars—moving the line perhaps.) Most of the reasons for all of the above edits were nonsense. (examples: a consensus not to delete an image does not mean we should include it. The fact that a license can be used to antagonize the copyright holder is not a reason to include it.) That image choice is ultimately subjective does not imply that we give any group an editorial veto right. This can only cause headaches as there's no way to verify if a user is actually contained in any image. The policy would therefore require removing pictures from all of the articles mentioned. I'm sorry, but not even five reverts justify such a change. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not conformable with this proposal at all. This is the kind of instructions creep we need to stay away from. It doesn't matter if someone's picture is in an anti-mormon article or not, because we can treat the situation the same simply if the person was mentioned in the article. We already have ways to deal with this. We certainly don't need to be giving preemptive advice for such rare situations, and ones that are not specific to images. -- Ned Scott 02:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation says:

We just won a lawsuit. Florence Devouard here says "I suggest that every project get a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons And consider building such policies in the near future." WAS 4.250 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Guidelines

At the Gayatri Spivak page we are trying to make sense of the language of the BLP criticism guidelines. What is a "tiny minority?" What does it mean for a critic to be "relevant to a subject's notablity?" Aren't all criticisms ultimately about pushing some agenda and biased points of view? If so, what does it mean to "insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability?" Some at our page have interpreted this to mean that it ought to have received serious attention in academic circles, thus rejecting the idea of mentioning an op-ed that is currently at issue.

Is it me, or does this section's language seem clear from afar, but less than handy when one is attempting to put it into practice to resolve a dispute? Perhaps that's the best language can ever do, but I wonder whether the section couldn't offer a bit more concrete/practical guidance.

In the meantime, if anyone cares to join the discussion RFC at the Spivak page, that would be appreciated. JrFace 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That section does seem rather confusing, especially to newbies and is redundant considering it just repeats policy on WP:NPOV (see the "Undue Weight" section), WP:V and WP:RS. It should be reworded, but preferably removed. That section gives the impression that negative bias is somehow much worse than positive bias, but ANY bias is bad. All of that criteria applies to positive sources, not just negative (critical) sources. It basically means to take negative sources (again, it applies to positive sources too) and phrase writing about them in a neutral manner. In other words, you would summarize and quote the source in a way that clearly attributes it to the source and doesn't endorse it, nor deny it.

The standard for judging a minority to be tiny is subjective; there is no specified objective criteria to judge what constitutes a 'tiny minority.' However, if you can find 3 independent, reliable sources, it is unlikely to be a fringe viewpoint. Relevant to a subject's notability means it is within the context of what makes the subject notable in the first place. For example, because Spivak is notable for (famous for) his literary criticism and theories, the criticism must be related to Spivak's criticism and theories. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. What would you think of adding the following to the criticism section?:

If editors do not agree on whether a particular criticism meets this criteria, an RfC or WP:EAR would be advisable.

I, personally, would have found this bit to be quite helpful. It hammers home the fact that, like you said, these things ultimately come down to a subjective judgment call. JrFace 20:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think in regard to BLP, criticism can be more damaging than positive bias. As our policy outlines, more care must be taken when including negative information about a person - hence the "do no harm". Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility, which is normally focus around criticism. It is also common to find articles in Wikipedia with criticism sections (sometimes entire articles). So beyond just advising on criticism, it is important to discuss these aspects in the context of BLP. Morphh ^(talk) 21:09, 07 November 2007 (UTC)

For the person the article's about, negaitve information is worse to them, but I was speaking in the context of the article's quality, not the person. When it comes to negative bias being worse, it is primarily the potentially libelous information that's at issue, beyond that I don't think that special policy or guidelines should be in place because we want to avoid "favoring" one bias over the other as much as possible. -Nathan J. Yoder 08:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy does not reflect practice

I raised a BLP issue on the noticeboard, a case which appeared by the wording of the policy to be a clear BLP violation. See this section. After some discussion, it appears that this is not a BLP issue after all. I believe the policy does not reflect practice, in that the policy does not specifically document cases where unpublished critical material is acceptable - i.e. when the unpublished criticism addresses "material... related to a person's work in a field" as opposed to "casting aspersions on the person".

I read the entire policy, and there is no text in BLP that addresses this distinction between a person and his beliefs/work. I think it should be clarified. I propose that a qualification be added to this policy: that the enhanced standards for BLP only apply to personal information, not anything related to a person's views or work, and that unpublished sources may be acceptable in the latter case. I was thinking of boldly adding this text, but since this is such a critical policy, I thought I'd raise it here first. ATren 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wales quotation on dictating policy

This is two parts, one on a specific quote and another on this general policy.

Part 1: I am concerned about the interpretation of this quote. In the context of the whole thread, he appears to be referring to only potentially libelous information, which is contrary to the policy page suggesting that it be removed regardless of libelous potential. Positive and neutral information can't really be libelous, unless you really think some guy will sue over something like "John has a huge penis." Besides, the policy was created specifically to address the problem of libelous information, so I think the context is clear.

If we interpreted the comment in and of itself, it would seem to apply to ALL information on Wikipedia. So either you interpret in context and do the former or interpret alone and do the latter.

Part 2: I've seen it before, but never queried about it. What exactly is it that gives Wales the power to personally dictate policy? I could perhaps understand it when Wales himself owned Wikipedia, instead of just the Wikimedia Foundation, but that's clearly not the case with these quotes. In the latter case, it should only be added if the Wikimedia board of trustees has voted it in (if consensus is to be ignored at all). He has no authority to dictate policy. Many of these quotes I see, he isn't even specifying that he thinks it should be officially added as policy. It really is contrary to the whole concept to ignore consensus, so I'm not sure how this is justified. I can copy this somewhere else if there is a better place for part 2. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What you say is true; Jimbo doesn't have any direct authority, and many of his quotations are rhetorical in nature and not literal policy statements. However, enough people are attached to them that they resist any attempts at removal. So here they stay.Wikidemo 05:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand why the people do it. The issue is how to stop it, because it quickly becomes a herd mentality due to his words having a God-like status (ethically I think he should edit with a sock puppet for all his edits except those that require he be under his normal one). It effectively bypasses any consensus and stays that way because of those people who are attached to them defend them so strongly. It becomes a vocal and energetic minority phenomenon, whereby regular editors don't want to spend the time and effort fighting an uphill battle. So someone like me would need to comment about this all over this place to get enough attention to actually try to form a true consensus, regardless of which way it ends up. -Nathan J. Yoder 09:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has what is a recognized "special authority" on the English Wikipedia. The exact nature of this special authority is not defined, but amounts to him being, well, the Jimbo of the English Wikipedia. This power could conceivably be removed by the community (and he has, I believe, acknowledged as much) but, as it stands, it has not been. The BLP policy is a good example here - a policy that exists largely because of his decree. Thus the quotes are of unusual relevance here. Phil Sandifer 15:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a consensus against him in a particular case invalidate his power in that case? If we don't seek to establish a consensus in regard to a certain case, we won't even know whether or not the consensus is in agreement with him. This is why it's a bad idea; in order to test the validity of his power in a given case, you need to form a consensus, but in that case, it makes the point of recognizing his special power moot. Clearly, when given a choice between the two, the consensus is the ideal choice. This is true even more in cases like this, where the alteration to policy is not major enough to cause a big outcry (in part due to ignorance of the change of the policy text and in part due to it not being a large enough "visible" change in behavior), so you can't rely on consensus being tested after the fact. Plus, we're left with an unintentional mentality where people agree with it because the think it's an established consensus. -Nathan J. Yoder 06:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your interpretation of Wales comment is dead wrong. "This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." (emphasis added) In general he thinks junk should be removed, but particularly for potential libel. I think the policy captures this quite well. For example:

"Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links"

We have a concern for removing all junk, but a particular vigilance in doing so when it's potentially libelous. This is in accord with Jimbo's quote and is good for the project (legally, and as a respectable encyclopedia). Do you honestly think we should not do this, or do you just want the quote removed for egalitarian reasons? Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I covered that possibility in my second interpretation. By interpreting the quote literally and in se, it applies to ALL information, not just bibliographic information, nor positive and neutral information. This means that all relevant policy pages need to be changed, but you'll probably have trouble getting that accepted considering how many people will add 'citation needed' instead of blindly removing all uncited information (that's against de facto consensus). I'm not sure what you mean about llegality, since that only applies to the libelous information which is covered by both interpretations. In terms of quality of the encyclopedia itself, I don't concede that removing absolutely all uncited information immediately is good practice, as it would require all articles to maintain a special list of "information to cite" along with where the information belongs in the article formatting wise. Then anyone reading the article can't just casually see information as they read it that is uncited, but true (and helpful), nor can they casually find a source if they, among the many readers, happen to know how to easily find it. Of course, my opinion in regard to that is a moot point in light of what consensus is, which allows people discretion in how quickly to remove information, except that which policy dictates must be removed immediatelty. -Nathan J. Yoder 06:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Feedback loop?

I have a question about this paragraph in the policy:

"Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention."

Could someone please tell me exactly how I am supposed to do this? I think this paragraph should be deleted from the poicy (how big of a problem is this anyway, or is this just a hypothetical someone drempt up?). UnitedStatesian 04:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Feedback exists. See this famous AfD where it was determined that some "sources" were really relying upon original research from Wikipedia. It's easy to rule out feedback: if a source pre-exists a claim in an article, it is not feedback. Otherwise, we should be cautious when such material is challenged and look for a better source which pre-exists claims in our articles. Cool Hand Luke 05:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So say I am examining a claim in the article George W. Bush. As of a year ago that article had been been edited 33,566 times. I have to go through all 33,566+ lines on the article history to figure out when the claim was put into the article? Not so easy, no? Also, I think the AfD you quote is not covered by BLP: can you idenitfy a feedback loop in a BLP? UnitedStatesian 18:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't hard. Go one year back in history (or whenever the source was published) and see if that version contains the claim. The fact that non-BLP articles have inspired press coverage implies that BLP articles could as well. Look, I think you're making this much too difficult: if only few recent sources support a claim, it's worth investigating whether it's possibly feedback. People who suspect feedback should bring it up, but it's not going to be a routine claim; only dubious and sparsely-cited information should raise eyebrows. Cool Hand Luke 19:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's WP:CREEP. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and therefore can't be used to support itself. This is already covered by WP:RS -Nathan J. Yoder —Preceding comment was added at 06:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Self published sources

I was bold and restored the prohibition on self published sources. This is a major change in the policy that was not discussed with enough participation. This change was attempted to be driven into WP:V as well. This kind of instruction creep will damage the project horribly. - Crockspot 13:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again. This is just too broad a declaration, and I can think of dozens of cases where it's utterly unsuitable. (First one to spring to mind - in the legal dispute between Todd McFarlane and Neil Gaiman, Gaiman's blog postings about his side of the debate are reliable sources for the McFarlene article. They should be clearly attributed and not stated as objective fact, but they are not prima faciae unacceptable. This sort of a priori ruling out of sources is what led WP:RS to get tagged as disputed for a while, and should not be resurrected. Phil Sandifer 14:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was never my intention in proposing the change. A dispute is controversial by definition, so would still not be appropriate. My intention, was, as the change says, to allow non-controversial information. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, though, self-publication is one aspect of reliability, not the whole game. It doesn't make sense to isolate it from the other judgments of reliability and make an absolute judgment- it never has. I agree, self-published sources in BLPs can be a massive problem. But think of the scope of what this rule means - no claims from Michael Moore in George W. Bush, even when cited as "Michael Moore says...?" No use of press releases except in articles on the organization issuing them?

Sourcing is actually a pretty complex judgment. There is a reason entire college courses are taught on writing research papers. It cannot be reduced to absolute imperatives. The correct formulation is "Be extremely careful in using self-published sources. Always identify claims that come from self-published sources in the body of the article, and use them only when their encyclopedic relevance to the topic is unimpeachable." Phil Sandifer 15:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore can be quoted, just not from his self-published source. Among other things, this helps establish WEIGHT. A blogger may be notable in some subjects, and may have opinions on all sorts of things. We discern weighty criticism by using what was cited in secondary sources, and it's especially important we do this in BLPs. Cool Hand Luke 16:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit war over this or you'll end up getting the page edit locked. It's not worth it to edit war on a content page. The current version has been in place a month and was the subject of a valid consensus process. See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 16#Non-controversial information, proposed. For the sake of stability leave that version in place until and unless a consensus emerges otherwise. Phil, what makes you think that's the correct formulation. It does not seem appropriate to me. Go slow here.Wikidemo 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Because sourcing is not something that can be done with absolute rules. Yes, scandalous material sourced to self-published sources needs to be removed. But it's important not to write a prohibition that goes too broad. And that's the problem here - sourcing rules are not an occasion for white line distinctions because sourcing is enormously subtle and dependent on individual circumstances and quirks. Phil Sandifer 15:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence, though others may say that a stronger formulation is needed for BLP. It's the second sentence that I'm most concerned about. Calling out the source within the article body is a style preference, not a policy matter, and is in many cases not appropriate, . As a made-up example: "As Tom Magliozzi claims on the self-published cartalk.com, his brother Ray suggested pitching a phone-in automobile show to PBS after hearing Buckminster Fuller comment on automotive design during an interview by Terri Gross." Do we really need to say in the text that it comes from cartalk.com or that the site is self-published? If someone follows the footnote they can figure that out for themselves. Similarly, does the relevance of the inspiration for the show have to be "unimpeachable"? Someone could certainly argue that this information is uncontroversial yet is not crucial to an encyclopedic understanding of the life of Ray Magliozzi (of course in real life it would be controversial - I made it up so it's not true, but that's a different issue). The objection some might have to the first sentence is that it leaves it up to the judgment of each individual editor, whereas telling people to avoid derogatory or controversial information is more of an objective standard. "I have been careful enough" is a much more difficult question to evaluate than "this is not derogatory." Wikidemo 16:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - I see the issue here, and you're right. My phrasing is off. The important thing here is that self-published claims in BLPs not be reported as absolute fact - that NPOV be maintained and we retain the structure of "X said Y." As for unimpeachable, that may even be too strong a formation - certainly the issues of relevance, accuracy, and notability all play in. But I think the evaluation is a difficult and complex question, and that shying away from that complexity is a mistake. Phil Sandifer 16:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: there is a parallel discussion going on at WP:V, where the heavyweights seem to be hanging out. I'm trying to encourage it to move over here....but the decision issue is whether to go with the current or the past version of the policy. This is a third option. If we throw the question wide open it could be a long discussion.Wikidemo 16:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to return both policy pages to the previous version i.e. no self-published sources to be used about living persons, except in articles about that SPS. Then we can discuss whether it needs to be reworded. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying

I would like to replace the phrase "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" with "Contentious material that is not properly sourced" or "Contentious material without proper sources".

Also, am I reading the policy right when I say that it's okay to leave unsourced material in biographies as long as it doesn't seem libelous and you're not aware that it's contentious? If that's the case, then I think {{BLPsources}} should be changed to reflect that, instead of saying "Unsourced material about living persons must be removed immediately". — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to state that unsourced material be removed immediately if it is not libelous or contentious. Most articles start out without many sources and tend to gain them as they improve in quality. I agree that the template should be changed to reflect this distinction. Morphh ^(talk) 23:59, 09 November 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living people should not have any unsourced material. The if it is poorly sourced and defamatory it can be remove promptly without discussion and can not be restored without proper sources. We should not give free license to place any unsourced content about living people in articles. Do not change the wording to encourage it. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FloNight. In real edit wars people have restored uncited information while claiming that it's not libelous, often arguing about that point. Nobody should do this, and the current wording more clearly discourages it. Cool Hand Luke 19:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree if the material is challenged it should probably be removed but this blanket statement of it being unsourced and remove it seems extreme. If it is something very small being questioned, a fact tag could be used. The best biography FA's don't source every statement. A large portion of the content of biographies in not sourced at the moment... should we delete it all? This is wikipedia and we have to keep in mind that not everyone is a veteran editor. Articles take time to grow and that includes sources. Follow the normal Wikipedia policies. What makes BLP a step above is with regard to areas of libel, slander, and the ability to hurt the person. This is the information that we need to be very strict on. Positive bias could follow the same way but I don't support some blanket statement that any unsourced material about living persons must be removed immediately... we'd have few articles and little content if everyone followed this. You're essentially requiring that all material must have a source for inclusion, regardless of what the content is about and regardless on if it is challenged. While a goal for FA, I think this type of policy goes against the wiki way for the ease of building quality articles by anyone. Morphh ^(talk) 3:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we clearly want to put the onus on the includer to prove that the information is well sourced and not defamatory. Well sourced by itself, morover, isn't enough. We cannot simply say "X has accused Y of child abuse" if in doing so we defame Y. --Tony Sidaway 19:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-generic language

Regarding this reversion by user:Brimba: the disputed language (the subject of the article) only applies to biographies. The proposed language (that person) applies to all BLP content. The edit summary did not address the reason given in my edit summary (making the language generic rather than biography-only, (diff)). Regarding the reasons given for the reversion: (1) Longstanding: I think it crept in due to this edit. This was an improvement on the longstanding but ambiguous language the subject but introduced the problem I flagged up. It probably went undetected due to the subsequent revert war. It's much too narrow, unlike the policy text it links to. (2) Proposed language awkward and less clear: please improve it. Thank you. Avb 11:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A person, and a persons work

The policy currently fails to distinguish between a persons work and the person themselves. Scientific articles will often discuss a persons work, and if they are controversial (particularly in the case of a scientist in one field venturing into another) crit of that work. This should be addressed (see William M. Gray for an example) William M. Connolley 15:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point, William. I see merit in finding some wording that would clarify this important distinction. One thing is to says "Y says that X is a charlatan" and another is to say "Y says that X's theory is based on insufficient data", for example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that's a big loophole. "I'm not saying that he's dishonest! I'm merely saying he's a criminal by profession!"; "I'm not calling him a plagiarist, I'm merely saying his work is a copy of mine!"; "I'm not calling him incompetent; I'm merely saying his work reads as if it were written by a drunken monkey!" --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It could be a loophole. But the point should be addressed. Your examples fail the unreasonableness test. My question was how far the very stringent BLP stuff that applies to talking about a person should apply to their work. Are you saying that it is so hard to police that no distinction can be made? William M. Connolley 16:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

When the person's work is central to their lives - and in very many cases it is - I would say that yes, criticism of their work does cause harm to the person, in a BLP way. In fact, many scientists will suffer considerably less harm from personal accusations than from accusations about their work. If you say that Professor Doe is fat and balding, he'll shrug and admit it, but if you say he's wrong in his theory, he'll write forty pages to twenty magazines protesting he's right. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point but using a very strict interpretation such as this may result in any BLP article being stripped of criticism or negative material, lowering the accuracy and quality of all BLP articles and resulting in them becoming not much more than fan pages. Gmb92 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that I am not arguing about removing all negative commentary from BLPs. The primary concern here is limited to self published sources being cited as a reference for negative content. Content which has been published in reputable third party venues is certainly still suitable for inclusion because they provide at least a minimal level of independent oversight on any negative commentary that appears in a BLP. --GoRight 05:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Florida

Any reason why Florida is mentioned in "must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies" ? Bestchai (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I just found the answer at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_16#Florida.3F Bestchai (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to expand WP:BLP to include images

I would like to recommend that the BLP policy be expanded to include images. My rationale for this is that, given Wikipedia's increasing restrictions on "fair use" images, in particular images illustrating the subject of an article, it has given rise to the uploading of a large number of very poor images, some of which, in my opinion, demean the subject. An example of this is the image currently used to illustrate Hattie Hayridge. I have determined that the image was uploaded in good faith, with the rationale that it was the only "free use/non-copyright" image available of the person. However as you can see it is a particularly ugly and unflattering image (note: I have made a big enough of a stink regarding this image in question that it may be replaced soon. The image I refer to is a shot of the actress frowning and grimacing). My concern is that if someone were to do something similar with someone who makes his/her living based upon their appearance -- a model, etc. -- they could see the image as demeaning and inappropriate in very much the same way as the BLP currently guards against the posting of content which could be seen to be libellous.

Perhaps this isn't the best venue to put this suggestion forward, however I really do feel that this should be addressed by BLP. Wikipedia management has made it clear that they'd rather see no images on an article than run the risk of using a copyright-violating image. I contend that the exact same rationale should be applied under BLP policy to images. Images don't always have to be pretty or super-professional in nature, but some common sense should still prevail. If you have two Creative Commons images, one of Angelina Jolie smiling and one of Angelina Jolie picking her nose, you don't upload the image of her picking her nose. And if all you have is the image of her picking her nose, then better to leave the article unillustrated until such a time as a better image can be obtained. I acknowledge that there is always the danger of WP:NPOV being violated, but I think a line has to be drawn between POV and common sense. An expanded policy should address this, of course. 23skidoo 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to have an image that violates BLP, but it has to be pretty bad. The one in Image:Hattie_Hayridge.JPG merely shows her frowning; while accusing someone of picking her nose in public is generally seen as at least a little derogatory, few people claim they never frown in public. If the subject wants us to display a better one she is welcome to make one freely licensed, and we should certainly pick the best one, but we shouldn't automatically delete all content that is merely imperfect and replace it with nothing. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen people try to use police mugshots as the main image, and others take very bad photographs of subjects — not deliberately, but just because they're not professional photographers — then get upset when other editors suggested the image was so bad it might be a BLP violation. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In principle, an image that denigrates someone could be a violation of the spirit of BLP. (although, actually, it is probably easier to remove it on the grounds that it misrepresents the subject, gives a false impression of their looks, and thus is not factual enough to be presented as a typical likeness in a biography. WP:NPOV is quite sufficient. Presenting an image as a 'typical likeness' when it is not - is simply unencyclopedic.) But I'd say we deal with this on a case-by-case basis. We don't need a specific rule or guideline here unless we've evidence of a general problem.--Doc^g 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - nasty pictures may be problematic, "insufficiently flattering" should not represent a problem. This Hattie Hayridge pic seems pretty reasonable - sure she's frowning, but it doesn't seem to represent her negatively (neutrally, maybe). Expanding the guideline is probably conterproductive, anyhow. Wily D 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we please add a note about using mugshots! Editors should not be adding mugshots to articles unless they are related to some crime that the subject is notable for. It seems that every time a mugshot is posted to smokinggun someone inevitably decides it needs to be added to Wikipedia. I believe this qualifies as a "general problem" and I've had a hard time using only WP:NPOV to fight it (as many newbie editors insist that photographs do not convey specific "points-of-view"). Kaldari 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a very poor idea. Yes, we sometimes have low quality images of living people - my favorite example remains Richard Schiff. The difference between these and libel, though, is that people can easily upload high quality images of themselves under the GFDL. If they are unwilling to do this, we make do with the best free image we can find. Yes, this is us using our position as a top ten website to push people to contribute more free content to the world. No, this is not something we should have problems with. Phil Sandifer 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Phil. What makes a picture flattering or unflattering is very subjective. NPOV requires we find the most neutral, neither pretty nor ugly. But writing policy to cover it would make more problems then it would solve. I thnk existing policies and good sense are sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see something about this in the policy, though it needn't pin us down too much. I've seen quite a few editors try to stick it to a BLP via an unflattering photograph, and it'd be good for the policy to remind them not to do this. Whether the subject provides us with a free one or not, I don't think we should allow pages to embarrass people unnecessarily. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have difficulty imagining how this could be codified into policy without violating WP:NPOV and requiring subjective evaluations on the basis of personal biases. I think it would be better to allow each case to be evaluated individually, through community discussion, giving primacy at all times to WP:NPOV. For instance, I think we can all agree that we shouldn't include in BLPs pictures that depict the subject while drunk (even if the image is free content) unless the image contributes significantly to a portion of an article (e.g. a portion dealing with a specific, noteworthy incident of drunkenness). However, I don't see how we could codify into policy a provision regarding the degree to which an image is embarrassing or inappropriate. For instance, most WP editors wouldn't have any problem with using this image; however, in some countries and cultures, that image is downright shameful ... it exposes arms, the neck, and what seems to be a tattoo. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested wording

If a guideline is thought needed (and I'm not sure on that), I'd submit the following:

"Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and to giving a factual impression of our subjects, usually demands that images (of whatever aesthetic quality) should be a fair and typical representation of the individual. An image which is not typical may be sometimes used, but only where the context merits it; and in such cases the particular context should be clearly indicated within the article."
"Since images communicate an impression of the subject, an image should not be used to give undue weight to some negative aspect of the biography. The use of a potentially embarrassing image, or its prominence, should reflect prominence of the aspect it depicts. For example, a mugshot should never be preferred to a more typical image, and should only be used where the individual's arrest is an important aspect of the biography. The prominence given should reflect the significance of the arrest."

How's that? I'd still say this is mainly about WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. It is only a BLP issue in so fat as BLP demands that these policies are taken VERY seriously with living individuals.--Doc^g 12:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I continue to think that this is a policy that formulating is only going to cause us problems. Do we even have a significant problem with this, or is it pure WP:BEANS? Phil Sandifer 14:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be right. I'm dead against any "rules" here. But there's no harm in articulating some guidelines - it gives us something to point the clueless to, and perhaps to help the semi-clued think a bit. Nothing in the above would take precedence over sensible discussion on a case-by-case. But see the recent [5] fuss] to see that simply verifying the image doesn't preclude such things being used to push a negative impression of the subject.--Doc^g 14:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest people consider that rewriting this might weaken our efforts to track down fair use violations. In particular, I recall a concern at John Howard that the free image made him look sadly gnomic; if people felt that that was a BLP violation as well, they would have edit-warred to introduce a non-free image. (They did anyway, with less justification, IIRC.) I don't believe that that is something we would like to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Free images should not always trump non-free images (or no images). If the free image is not in line with our policies, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Kaldari 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A picture of someone frowning and not in keeping with their public persona is not a violation of our core policies. Relata refero 05:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the wording of this suggested policy addition and I support its inclusion 100%. This is very much needed to fight off trolls like Getaway who want to smear people through Wikipedia, some of which are sophisticated enough to know the WP:NPOV policy and argue their position no matter how transparent their motives are. Kaldari 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ledwith

Can someone else weigh in on this sourcing discussion for this BLP: Michael Ledwith? An editor wants to add accusations from a victim's rights group site to the aritlce. The document appears to be an offical court document posted there, but the site itself doesn't look particularly reliable - I'd like to get more eyes on it just to make sure...Dreadstar † 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added an audio source on the talk page, can someone review this as I would like to amend the article?r011in (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

BRDP

I think that maybe we should expand this policy to include those that are very recently dead, out of respect for mourners. After all, you'd feel pretty pissed if someone was suddenly off to harm the reputation of your late loved one, wouldn't you? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we go not with the letter of the policy but, if you'll pardon the pun, with the spirit - the recently dead would be covered already.--Doc^g 19:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no reasonable boundary to how recently someone has to be dead before the living no longer get upset at their reputation being harmed. Muhammad has been dead over a thousand years, yet a billion people get highly upset if something bad is said about him. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but if your father died yesterday, we don't suddenly think "hey, this is no longer a BLP, we can relax the rules"--Doc^g 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We think "we can wait until tomorrow"? We think "let's wait until his children all die too"? We think "let's wait until his children no longer care about him?" What do we think, actually? What is the limit, and what are you basing it on, please? Is there any limit? How about "this policy applies to anyone who was ever alive?" --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. Until then, let's use discretion, sensitivity, and common sense.--Doc^g 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Good on ye. But why restrict it there? Common sense clearly dictates that a policy called "biographies of living persons" doesn't apply merely to biographies of living persons. Sensitivity reminds us that people can get offended by perceived harm to not only living or recently dead people, but also inanimate objects, or even concepts. (Flag Desecration Amendment, Stone of Scone, Al-Aqsa Mosque, ...). When this policy clearly applies to all articles in the Wikipedia, our next mission will be to apply it to the outside world. Onward Wiki Soldiers, Marching As To War! With The BLP Policy Going On Before! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever.--Doc^g 20:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. But I think that this common sense policy shouldn't just be pigeonholed into just being a policy concerning living people. Crusade on anyhow :) — Rickyrab | Talk 06:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, controversies about living people do need to be addressed, if information is to be comprehensive and NPOV. In addition, this should likewise apply to all phenomena, people, or objects, living or not. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, common sense -- as well as the English language -- certainly does dictate that a policy of biographies of living persons applies only to living persons in the literal sense of the word. The usual standards of R, V, and appropriateness of content are sufficient for everyone else. DGG (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Family Portrait

I'm asking here as I don't see this covered in the policy.

Is it appropriate to include in a BLP article a photo of the subject, their parents, and their siblings in a case where

- the subject is much better known than either the parents or the siblings, and

- the photo is not essential to the article.

I think the answer is no, but I would like another opinion.

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this remotely falls under BLP guidelines, since it's not an attack picture nor could anyone possibly look at it negatively. It could fall under the normal guidelines of image inclusion, what's appropriate to the article, etc., but I see no reason to cite BLP when removing it, as this editor has done. --Golbez (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked my initial question in generic terms. However, this discussion will not make sense to other readers if they do not know that editor Golbez is referring to the article Paris Hilton, and the question of whether or not to include in it a photograph of Ms Hilton with her family.

My position is:

The article does not "need" the photo, in any way I can see. There are numerous examples of biography articles that do not include family portraits. I would guess the vast majority do not.
The other family members are far and away less public figures than Ms Hilton. In consideration of their interests and based on my understanding of BLP policy, I removed the photo.

Please can we get other inputs on this? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's better than simply saying "BLP" - you actually said who the BLP was about now, the less- or non-notable members of her family. And that is worth discussing. --Golbez (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that her sister and her parents are all three of them clearly individually notable enough in their own right for WP articles, I do not see why such a photograph would be inappropriate--her father is in any rational sense a more important person by far than she is herself. (Her brothers are apparently not yet appropriate for WP articles, but they are probably wealthy enough that they will be eventually.) But I can think of very different circumstances where the inclusion of family members would make a picture inappropriate, as for a criminal. DGG (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is Image:Hilton family.jpg we're talking about, it's not a BLP problem as they're all public figures at a very public event, but there's no way that's allowable under fair use. There has to be commentary on the image itself, not just on the people in it. It's replaceable and unnecessary. A free photo of the Hiltons would be fine. Chick Bowen 05:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your inputs. I did not look at whether Wikipedia could properly use the image, only the question of whether using it conformed to our BLP policy.

I get the impression that DGG would take the approach that some people in this family portrait are not public figures. Chick Bowen on the other hand, clearly states that they are all public figures. Please can we take the cautious approach, which I think the BLP policy supports, and assume that some people in this family picture are NOT public figures.

Based on this assumption, I decided that use of the image is a BLP problem and deleted it. Other people with more experience see it differently. I think it would be a good idea to have a specific statement in the policy about images. Wanderer57 (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

non article space

I have added a section that I believe puts into words the consensus of what best practice is in the area of applying BLP to non article space. I hope everyone sees fit to agree that we need such as section and agrees that what I wrote is close enough that it is better to tweak it in place than to remove it to talk. Thank you to anyone who helps to improve it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts between WP:V and WP:BLP concerning self-published material

Apparently continued below in #Sources again —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonEMouse (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP was recently amended to allow the inclusion of non-controversial information from self published sources information; specifically books, zines (fan web sites), websites, and blogs. See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 16#Non-controversial information, proposed

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

Was changed to:

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable material about a living person other than the publisher or author of the material (see below).

This presents a few problems, starting with the two words linked at the end (see below), why? Because when you click that link you are told in strait forward terms:

Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself.

Thus there is an internal conflict on the page itself. Two editors could cite the same page as grounds for either removing or retaining the same material, and BOTH would be right. Policy needs to be clear, maybe with some wiggle room, but not conflicting.

The second problem is that WP:V prohibits the use of self-published material.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer.

It is patently silly to allow material per BLP that would be excludable per V, when BLP was specifically designed to protect the reputations, etc of living persons; the very entities most easily damaged by erroneous material being incorporated into a WP page.

Third, its violates WP:V’s general prohibition on using self-published material, which reads:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

If changers are in order concerning the use of self-published material, then they need to originate on WP:V, and specifically not on W:BLP, as that would be a clear case of the tail wagging the dog.

Lets find a common consensus regarding how to handle self-published material if that is your goal. When policy creates clear conflicts both within the page on which the policy resides, and creates external conflicts with other policy pages, then it can not stand. Brimba 22:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed we need to be consistent. As per that link, I strongly sympathize with the BLP goal of making sure controversial material on living persons is well sourced, so living people are not harmed. However, non-controversial material is by definition not harmful. If it's harmful, it's controversial. We have consistently been including expert self-published sources for non-controversial material on living persons in our articles, including our Wikipedia:Featured articles. Out of the 3 articles on living people that were promoted just last week, Shelton Benjamin uses http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com ; Cillian Murphy uses http://www.declanrecks.com and http://www.ruairirobinson.com . The week before that, we were 1 for 1: Lee Smith (baseball player) uses http://www.thebaseballpage.com/ http://www.baseball-reference.com/ And this isn't "othercrapexists", these are our best articles. As someone said before, our policies are meant to describe what we actually do. This is what we do. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The BLP text removed should be restored, and the V text changed, as this is what is commonly done and there is no logic in trying to alter that since it is a good practice. 2005 00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AnonEMouse. Non-controversial information is, by its very nature, non-controversial. I see no problem with using information from self-published sources as long as it is:

Non-controversial
Plausible, and not contradicted by any other reliable source
Not relating to a claim of notability
Used in proportion (such information should not be the majority of the article)
Encyclopedic in nature (meaning it's okay to use simple biographical information, or other "fill in the gaps" info such as location, schools, etc., but we shouldn't go wild and use the information to include a lot of trivia like their favorite breakfast and the most recent concert they attended)
Backed up with other reliable sources that do make the claim for notability, the raison d'etre for the article. Or in other words, if all we have are self-published sources, then the individual probably doesn't meet WP:BIO anyway.

Basically, I see information from living people as a valuable resource which we should take advantage of, rather than pushing it away because it hasn't specifically appeared in a newspaper. Our ultimate goal here is to provide an information resource. If some of the information comes from the subject himself (or herself), then I see no problem with that, as long as it's just for small amounts of bland biographical data. El on ka 00:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, the issue isn't whether to use the subject's own self-published material. The policies already allow that. The issue is whether to allow other people's self-published material about third parties. In other words, if I add something to my blog about you, can I then also add it to the Wikipedia article about you, citing my blog as the source? The current policies say no. Some people here want to change that to say yes, so long as the information I add isn't controversial.

My argument against this is that it's equivalent to allowing original research. If all I have to do to get something about you in Wikipedia is first of all add it to my blog, then we may as well skip that step altogether, and just allow editors to add their personal opinions about other people to articles directly. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The text should be similar to "Self-published material may... be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" as well as being non-confrontational and non-derogatory (and not contradicted by third party sources). For example, if Martin Scorcese says on his personal website that Steven Spielberg is the greatest film director of the past 35 years, there is no harm to state that as his opinion and cite the personal website. This language should be very strong and emphasize the non-controversial aspect, but a blanket prohibition is silly and certainly not followed by the mass of editors who in general pay attention to the non-deragatory part of BLP but don't investigate who owns the site. 2005 01:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

All of which fails to address the real problem, which is that there isn't much difference between "original research" and what you see in the average newspaper. Or magazine. Yeah, you got the material past some tired editor and then indulged in some sacred ritual involving tree-sacrifice and thundering presses. But so what? We've all seen the myriads of mistakes left after THAT process, and in the end, putting material here on Wikipedia in front of a zillion people, plus experts, is a far more rigorous test of the "truth" or "factuality" of a thing (which will inevitably be challenged immediately if it is wrong or unpopular), than almost any peer review you can name. And certainly far more thorough than what happens in any kind of short turn-around periodical. So present policy really makes no sense. It's just printed-material worship. Very old-school, and very much the product of a non-internet upbringing. And VERY ironic, considering what is being done here. S B H arris 01:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But newspapers do at least have some process, imperfect as it is. We have no fact-checking process at all; no access to lawyers, professional editors, no libel insurance. That's why when it comes to living persons we have to be extra cautious. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As you know, I wouldn't even allow bios of living persons who weren't famous enough to be in Britannica already, so we bypass that whole problem. It's ridiculous to base ANY Wiki standards on it, since it's a very separate subject and process, which really needs to have its own set of standards, if you do it at all (which you shouldn't if the subject objects). A fair amount of this nonsense has come out of Wikipedia insisting on a foolish consistancy, and proving to the world that it it can handle BLP with the very same set of standards it handles everything else. Why? Well, because Jimbo got a bug up his rear that it should be possible. Not for any particularly logical reason. Once you jetison BLP, that leaves you with the real question of how you get to the truth in a web publication. Which is interesting, but doesn't have much to do with privacy invasion. Which is privacy invasion whether it's true or not. S B H arris 01:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. But the question remains whether, given that we publish BLPs, we should allow anyone to add original research to them, so long as it's not derogatory. Because that's what's being suggested here -- that we should allow someone to add unsourced material about a living person (not himself) to his blog and then immediately add it to Wikipedia, using only his blog as a source, even if the material is completely unnotable, and where there's no indication that it's been fact-checked or run past the subject for comment. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Slim, that's a complete straw man of the opposing position. Please go back and read some of the objections that I, at least, have been raising to this proposal and engage the actual argument. To say that "self-published sources" and "original research" are equivalent is ludicrous. Phil Sandifer 01:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No point in saying it's ludicrous without saying how. If I own a blog, and I add something unsourced and unpublished to it about you (something non-derogatory), then you're proposing that I be allowed to come straight to Wikipedia and add it to your article too, using only my blog as the source. That's OR. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He indicated it by stating that it's a straw man argument. He clearly doesn't support someone taking that action. WP:OR already forbids someone from doing that, so adding more policy on other pages is WP:CREEP. The analogy made before to newspapers is apt. Do you recognize the difference between a variety of independent, Wikipedians deciding that a self-published source is valid to include and when the publisher of that very same source decides to include it? Following your logic, all sources accepted under WP:RS that have bad information would become original research. We accept material from books and magazines, including research in them. These are sources sources whose decisions to publish are based primarily on sales and not factual accuracy (consider the many highly biased books with their own research, not anywhere near good enough to get published in a journal, of a political nature). If the author of one of these books or magazines inserts it into Wikipedia, is it original research? You better get rid of all books and magazines. This is not even including op-ed pieces, biased/disreputable journals, etc... -Nathan J. Yoder 07:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a strawman. We are talking about something that MUST meet the criteria of a reliable source, as everything cited does. Expert personal websites can meet this criteria. Some random blog can not. The issue is if an expert's personal website is a reliable source on physics, or film, or Tunisia, then why can't that expert be cited for mundane, non-controversial statements about a human in the field of physics, or film, or Tunisia? 2005 01:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're getting issues mixed up. It doesn't meet the criteria of a reliable source if it's an SPS being used in a BLP. That's a matter of definition. We have no overall definition of an RS otherwise. The answer to your last question is because we're extra careful with BLPs, because they can sue and/or because publishing nonsense about them can ruin their lives. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you are very confused here. Publishing nonsense has nothing to do with this issue. And saying "ruin lives" is laughably not the issue. We are ONLY discussing non-controversial, non-harmful, non-contentious material. Please keep the focus on that, not the two strawmen you have brought up. No one is advocating those positions, and none of the text in question does, so lets focus on that and not this irrelevant stuff. 2005 02:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Slim. Nothing I have said on this page is "I can say something mean about you on my blog and go and add it to Wikipedia." Nothing whatsoever. Nothing I have said even resembles that claim. Please go read my posts and reply to something I actually said instead of constructing straw men. Phil Sandifer 02:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I didn't say "mean." I said "non-derogatory." You want to be able to add something non-derogatory about a person to your blog -- something unsourced and unpublished -- then add it straight to that person's WP BLP, using only your blog as a source. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as I don't maintain a blog at present, I'm not exactly sure why I would say that I want to be able to add something to my blog and put it in Wikipedia. I have said things about the uselessness of absolute prohibitions in sourcing discussions. Perhaps you'd like to comment on that, or one of the other points I actually made? Phil Sandifer 03:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not really plausible. The steps to gaming a blog in order to hoax Wikipedia would be - 1) become an expert in your field and achieve recognition as such; 2) start a blog and advance it to a degree where it is authoritative; 3) sacrifice your reputation by publishing a lie; then finally 4) add links to your own writing in violation of WP:COI. I think you could write a scenario no more improbable for hoaxing Wikipedia by writing nonsense for others as a freelance writer or tricking journalists into publishing false information (it's called public relations).Wikidemo 09:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What is “non-controversial, non-harmful, non-contentious material”? That is a subjective standard that it’s possible to have sincere differences of opinion about. Insisting upon editorial oversight is not the problem; it’s the solution when dealing with the lives of living people. Most material that is truly non-controversial, non-harmful, and non-contentious will work its way in simply because no one is going to challenge it, that’s the reality, it by default falls under IAR. Brimba 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"it’s possible to have sincere differences of opinion about." Actually it isn't. That is what "contentious" means. If there is a difference of opinion, then it is contentious, and can't be added. 2005 03:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Most material that is truly non-controversial, non-harmful, and non-contentious will work its way in simply because no one is going to challenge it, that’s the reality, it by default falls under IAR." What's the point of having a policy then, if we have to ignore it all the time? Don't you think that if so many, even the majority of our best articles on living people, have to ignore the policy on living people, that there's something wrong with the policy? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

See, and this is why I'm so frustrated at SlimVirgin for derailing the argument into straw men. The relevant thing here isn't non-controversial material - it's the many cases where a self-published source is completely reliable for a given claim. Sourcing is, contrary to SlimVirgin's oversimplifying bromides, a complex thing that does not lend itself to absolute prohibitions. But now instead of discussing those we're discussing the insane hypothetical of me adding information to my non-existent blog and then adding it to Wikipedia citing myself as a source. Phil Sandifer 03:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What would prevent someone from doing that under the policy change you're proposing? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR, the existing portions of this page that note the importance of only covering significant events, by extension WP:NPOV, and, I imagine, a horde of editors with good editorial judgment who will take a dim view of people adding stupid and irrelevant material to articles? Phil Sandifer 03:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

“That is what "contentious" means. If there is a difference of opinion, then it is contentious, and can't be added.” That’s assuming both sides are acting in good-faith, which is unfortunately not always the case. In many cases I would suspect that the editor wishing to retain the material will simply claim that the opposing editor is trying to delete the material for blatantly “POV” reasons, and will demand that the material remain until some “neutral” source states that’s it really is contentious – of course no “neutral” source will be forthcoming. Thats only one of many ways of defeating the wording; the ways to do so are as varied as ones imagination. Brimba 04:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as the information is non-controversial, about minor biographical details, and is "reasonable," I think it should be allowed. For example, we may not have a college listed for some notable individual, John Doe. But on a web search, we see that his sister, Mary Doe, posted in her blog that she and John both went to George Washington College in Podunk, Iowa. I think it's perfectly reasonable to use Mary's blog as a source for the name of John's school. She's someone who was in a position to know, and as long as there was no reasonable concern that the information was inaccurate, I'd see no problem with using her blog as a source for minor biographical information. --El on ka 06:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it not make more sense to leave the policies as they are, rather than introducing an explicit loophole that could cause problems? As things stand, according to V, all edits that are challenged or likely to be challenged, need a source — which leaves room for discussion, because inherent in that is "challenged or likely to be challenged by a reasonable person." And according to BLP, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately.

So, if something in a BLP is truly harmless, it escapes the attention of both these policies. If it's not contentious, it needn't be removed per BLP. If it's not challenged or likely to be challenged, it doesn't need a source per V.

The point of the no-SPS clause in BLP is that, if something does need a source (i.e. if it's contentious, or is challenged or likely to be challenged), that source can't be an SPS, unless the SPS is the subject himself. But if it's the kind of thing that really doesn't need a source, then all is well.

Phil, far from being "oversimplifying bromides," the core policies are actually quite nuanced and sensible, and they can cope with most of what reasonable editors want to do. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But that's perverse. So you're saying that we can say that John Doe went to George Washington College, as long as we don't cite it to any source? So what's stopping some malicious or merely mistaken editor from writing he went to Thomas Jefferson College instead? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, it still doesn't address the fact that it is simply untrue that all SPS are unreliable. When J. Michael Straczynski posts to Usenet about the reason an actress left Babylon 5, this is reliable. When Neil Gaiman comments publicly on his lawsuit with Todd McFarlane, this is reliable. These are the two I can come up with easily. In both cases the information should be reported with clear attribution (i.e. "Neil Gaiman claims X"). But to say that it cannot be added because it is unreliable fails to reflect reality. Phil Sandifer 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Likely to be challenged", "contentious", and "improved by adding a source" are three different things. Some people are deleting citations simply because they are to blogs. Not all blogs are self-published, and not everything self-published is a blog. But why draw a line around self-publication specifically? The real issue is reliability. Some self-published sources are reliable within some realms; others are not. At a given level of reliability, there is nothing to suggest that a self-published source of non controversial information is any more harmful than a non-self-published source.

To pick a random example (there are endless examples) beerhunter.com was self-published by Michael Jackson, the world's preeminent authority on beer. At one place he says that brewer Thom Tomlinson of the High Country Brewery in Boulder Colorado used to make a beer called Renegade I.P.A. I don't think a statement like that should be added without a source. But here is a source, the only one on the web for this particular fact. Utterly non-controversial, and anybody who thinks Wikipedia would get sued or lives would be hurt by allowing a mention of the fact cited to Michael Jackson has quite an imagination. But alas, Jackson died several weeks ago and his site is still up so by definition, I suppose, this source is no longer self-published. Why should our ability to mention that someone was formerly a brewmaster in Colorado depend on the death of an expert writer? Yes, if we draw a hard line around self-publication it is that arbitrary.Wikidemo 09:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not allowing an exception for expert testimony only runs counter to the purpose of 'reliable source.' The current policies gleefully ignore that money is a huge motivator in publication--even more than accuracy. There are numerous highly biased, political books, op-ed pieces, poorly checked newspaper articles, etc... Because of the absolute, unbendable metric used, even the worst, most clearly biased sources falling under the current criteria (e.g. a book by Ann Coulter) are considered to be more "reliable" than a well researched, expert blog that happens to be self-published. Also, something valid being in an expert blog doesn't necessarily mean it's of enough interest to write an entire book, write a newspaper article (required to be geared toward lay people), etc--doesn't make it less accurate. At worst, it makes it less notable, but that's not the issue at hand. -Nathan J. Yoder 09:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is such a baby/bathwater thing. We don't want "ruining" content in BLPs. So we should say that. The type of site matters not at all. 2005 10:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish to draw you attention to an on-going exchange wherein a group is struggling with the very topics you are discussing above. I think that it is valuable for you to review this to get some real world perspective on how these policies are being interpreted and discussed already. Despite some of the claims above of various issues being strawmen or ludicrous, and the obvious definition of "contentious", all of these points are playing out in a real world discussion. I have tried to condense the primary points of that discussion into a section of the pertinent discussion page here: William Gray Talk Page. Here is a summary of the issues being discussed:

Exactly what does it mean to be an "established expert on the topic of the article" when the topic of the article is a BLP and therefore about a specific person?
Does the "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" have to be the same work that is being referenced on the WP:SPS? In other words, if someone who is an established expert in say climate change allowed to post text on a blog that they run with other established experts on climate change and then reference that text in a BLP of a person who has publicly made comments on GW when the content of that text has not been published in a reliable third-party source?
Same as the previous point but now add the fact that the text in question is not even attributed to a specific author on the site, i.e. it is anonymous.
Are there legal implications for wikipedia if the WP:SPS being referenced is run by a group of established experts but the article in question is anonymously written? The entire issue of BLP is to limit wikipedia's liability in terms of libel suits. If the New York Times publishes an anonymous editorial that libel's someone and that editorial is referenced on wikipedia the wronged individual can sue the NYT because they are a legitimate legal entity which presumably provides some degree of indemnification for wikipedia. The question is, in the case of a blog which is group run but not a legal entity who gets sued? Are they providing the same level of indemnification to wikipedia as say the NYT would be?

I encourage you to take these discussions into account as you endeavor to improve the BLP policies. --GoRight 15:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's clearly controversial criticism, since the subject disputes it. (Is there such a thing as non-controversial criticism? Yes, though rarely: for example Batman & Robin (film) where not only is the criticism overwhelming, but the main star and director have both admitted they screwed up. :-)) The only question is whether a consortium of scientists means it a self-published source; so that's not really relevant to this dispute. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet the argument has occurred. I don't wish to take sides here, I just want a clear policy that I can rely on in future discussions. Perhaps the arguments are unavoidable on topics where passions are strong, but even something as straight forward as "not contentious" being a disqualifier ends up being "contentious". I prefer to let you all hash out the policy. My only purpose here is to point out where the current policy may need clarification. --GoRight 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire issue of BLP is to limit wikipedia's liability in terms of libel suits. That is incorrect. The policy page reads beyond that and addresses other important issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But clearly that is at least one of the issues for having a BLP? Among the others?

I don't wish to single out the blog in question here since this is a general policy discussion. I would urge you to put some thoughtful consideration into what seem to me to be the special circumstances represented by this type of a blog (i.e. one run by experts in some field which gives the site a general sense of credibility but on which they can potentially post things that they might not otherwise get into wikipedia but now potentially can because they can simply reference what is otherwise considered a reputable source.

A real world example can be found on the An Inconvenient Truth page wherein this group of respected experts in the field of climate science has posted what amounts to pure speculation on their part regarding the financial influences on NSTA for which they have no first hand knowledge, and yet their reference remains because they are "experts in climate science". It is this sort of back door effect that I think you need to be mindful of while debating the policy. --GoRight 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue of BLP is to avoid harm to living persons, not just on legal, but also on moral grounds. We should be quite strict on statements that cause harm to living persons. But if statements don't cause harm, and can't even be in good faith be said to be controversial, then we should be able to write the most accurate encyclopedia we can, using our other policies, which allow self-published statements from experts. In many cases, writing the most accurate and comprehensive article is actually a good thing, rather than harmful, though I know this is surprising to some. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If the act of criticizing a person's work causes harm, as you argue below, then self-published statements from experts would have to be limited to only positive comments. Thus, accuracy and comprehensiveness would certainly be heavily compromised. Gmb92 05:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Let us not forget that we are only discussing self-published materials here which undergo no independent review or fact checking. Materials published in the press, in scientific journals, in any reputable third party source would not be affected and any negative commentary can be adequately leveled through these venues. --GoRight 05:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If we use the William Gray article as an example, the RealClimate critique of Gray's GW work by experts who have published in scientific journals on the issue has been replaced by a 3rd party source that prints a quote from a person who describes Gray, the person, as "radical". The result is a lowered quality of the article's contents with no change in the "harm to living persons" status, legal or moral. Reliable source SPS critiques of a person's work should be allowed, not just in this instance. Gmb92 06:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The "radical" quote was from a (largely favorable) published newspaper article on Gray. The quoted scientist was a colleague of Gray's who has been a peer reviewer on several of Gray's unpublished articles, and therefore seems to be a very reliable authority on both Gray and his work. Contrast this with unpublished, un-peer-reviewed, unattributed criticism from ideological opponents, posted on a blog. ATren 11:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're singling out the RC critique as "unpublished, un-peer-reviewed" since the comments you added are the same. Regardless, critiques not published or peer-reviewed are allowed from experts who have published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic. In one instance, we have a few passing comments from one of Gray's peers. We removed the "Aged Skeptics" commentary in part because it lacked any real substance. In the other instance, we have a group of experts who have published in the field offering a more detailed critique. One critique is of higher quality. Gmb92 16:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The quote to which you refer was published in a reputable third party source, it is just not peer reviewed. No one is suggesting that only peer reviewed criticism be allowed in a BLP. In this context published can mean peer reviewed scientific journals but also newspapers, magazines, etc from otherwise neutral thrid parties. The only requirement I would seek is that self-published negative criticism be disallowed for the obvious reasons related to potential for abuse. I think that a definitive statement on this point without any exceptions best serves the goals of the BLP. Positive self-published commentary would still be allowable as well. --GoRight 03:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Critique of a person's work from established experts who have published in a related field should not be subject to this strict interpretation. Else, we compromise the quality and accuracy of the article. I think the article in question is a good example of this. Gmb92 06:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In understand that this is your opinion. I simply don't agree. I prefer to let this policy group make the decision rather than arguing endlessly over this issue time and again. There is no reason the crticism in question cannot be published in a third party source and then referenced. Why the demand to allow self published sources for negative commentary which amounts to allowing the editor in question to simply bypass the restrictions and policies set forth here? Why must this be allowed to be self published? If the criticism and the editor in question have merit presumably they would not have any problem getting it published by a reputable source, correct? --GoRight 23:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

3rd party self published material and today's featured article

Today's front page featured article, Michael Jordan, is a biography of a living person, extensively sourced to databasebasketball.com. If you read where the content comes from http://www.databasebasketball.com/about/aboutplayerstats.htm it's a personal web site, it refers to itself as "I", and it gets its information from another individual person who runs another personal web site. The guy seems to have signed up with Rotowire to handle advertising for him, but he generates the content of his site himself. It's an expert personal web site, it's "Listed in Sports Illustrated as the best basketball reference site!" if you believe its front page, yet it makes no claims to any second person doing any editorial review of the site content. If we take the "absolutely no self published sources" policy here seriously, we would need to delete all those references, along with, I'd guess, about half of today's featured article. Anyone going to do it? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? I do not see what the problem would be with using that source for this: http://www.databasebasketball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=JORDAMI01 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't either. I think it's perfectly fine, it's an expert source being used for non controversial information. But the language in WP:BLP that people are edit warring over says it should be deleted, since it's a self-published source being used as a source in an article about a living person. "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below)." That's what this section is all about, whether we can use sources just like that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

People that editwar need to be told that there are no excuses for that. If they persist post a notice at WP:AN/I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And if someone editwars about Michael Jordan's stats published on that site, there other places where the stats can be found. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing contentious in these stats, and if there is — if they are challenged — another, non-self-published source would have to be found. The publisher admits that his stats aren't official and that the site might contain errors. (There's no confirmation that it's self-published BTW; sometimes he says "I" and sometimes "we.") AEM, what did you think about my point above [6] — that the policies as written can cope with these non-contentious issues? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the language you (and Jossi) propose: Third party self-published sources may not be used for contentious material. If they are challenged in good faith, another source must be found. I just want the policy to say that. Agreed?

See, otherwise the policy page currently says we are not allowed to use this link as a source in the article. You, and I, and Jossi, are saying that's ridiculous, we certainly should be allowed to use this link. That's a direct contradiction of the policy, which is why I think it should be changed. Otherwise we need to be violating the letter of the policy, regularly, often, and prominently, in the articles meant to be an example to others, rather than changing it so that the letter actually conforms to the spirit, which we all agree on. I read your point above, and you will see that I responded to it immediately below your text quite a while ago. The reason I think we need to be explicit is because the rest of this policy does not imply "it's all right to ignore this if it is not challenged". The rest of the policy endorses immediately deleting violations. Hopefully we are in agreement that it does not endorse immediately deleting the half of Michael Jordan cited to this excellent source?

If you have a better phrasing that meets all of our goals, I would be very glad to hear it; I'm not claiming to be as expert at writing policy as you are, and would appreciate your help. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think this leaves an awful big gap for abuse, as it is impossible to concretely discern good faith. And the "one challenge and its dead" approach seems antithetical to the idea of consensus - surely if a consensus forms on a source one person doesn't get to demand that consensus be ignored. Phil Sandifer 14:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Phil, my man, half a loaf is better than none. Getting any change out of SlimVirgin is like moving the rock of Gibraltar. Let's get her to do the conga later. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have an obsolete and unchanged bad wording that I can point to a talk page discussion and say "Yeah, but tons of people have pointed out that this is a silly rule" than form a consensus for a new bad wording. It's much harder to fill the gap between wording and sanity with IAR if there's a recently formed consensus for the new wording. And in both cases, IAR is the only thing that makes the wording function sanely. Phil Sandifer 14:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What is this, tactical voting? :-( --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm just not going to support wording I think is fundamentally flawed - to do otherwise would be tactical, and I don't even think it would be good tactics. Phil Sandifer 15:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to subject - Slim, Jossi, may we use your own words here? Or do you have better ones? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag

It's now 5 days that no one has responded, while the dispute is not settled, no one has agreed or changed their mind or reached any compromise. I tried to make a list of views on User:AnonEMouse/BLPSPS - it seems roughly even: about a third of participants feel that we can not allow any third party self-published sources at all; about a third that we can allow expert self published sources making non controversial statements; and about a third that we need to take each case individually, and can't make an absolute rule.

Most interesting is that several people backing the "no SPS at all" view seem to be saying that we can write a rule, but it's all right if we don't follow it; "it's like jaywalking", Brimba wrote on my talk page. I feel we need to treat WP:BLP a little more seriously than jaywalking, and we need to write a rule that says what we actually do. I prefer the "non controversial" phrasing, but can live with the "look at each situation individually" phrasing; I can't live with the "let's make a rule that most of our featured articles on living people break" option. Please, let's work together and come up with a compromise that actually describes what we do. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above I prefer to let you all as a group hash through these matters. I think that the policy is much improved due to your collective efforts. I would only ask that if you decide on the "non-controversial" option that you make some attempt to define that in such a way that it can be objectively, rather than subjectively, determined. If any hint of subjectivity remains in the determination of something being "controversial" there will be endless debates about what that means, as there will in the case of the "case by case" option obviously.

There are, for example, on-going and long-standing debates on the inclusion of the word "controversial" in the opening sentences for the following articles An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle. I offer these only as concrete examples of the endless warring that goes on over a simple word such as "controversial".

I would also urge you to write the policy with a view towards the future rather than one of protecting existing pages. Existing pages can be brought into conformance with the future view over time, and as needed, when controversy on those pages comes to light. In the mean time existing pages that don't conform to the future view can simply be viewed as being exceptions under WP:IGNORE. You can state as much in the policy, in fact, as a practical matter which is necessary due to the evolving nature of the policy itself and make clear that future edits to any such affected pages should be made so as to bring it into conformance with the updated policy.

It is my hope that a clearly defined and objectively applied policy can help to reduce the warring that goes on with respect to the implementation of that policy.

Thanks for your collective efforts in this important matter. --GoRight (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the "let's make a policy everybody ignores" is a terrible idea. The non-controversial or case by case idea work for me. The current wording is pretty foolish since a huge number, probably most, of editors don't follow it. Also, it completely misses the point of the basic concern of reputation/life/controversy. 2005 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi removed the disputed tag without commenting in the dispute. I humbly submit there are a number of respected editors with valid objections, in fact twice as many as are defending this silly sentence, and the dispute is not resolved by silence. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here are some latest week's Featured Articles which use self-published sources about living people: Bobby Eaton uses DDT Digest, Pro Wrestling History.com, Wrestling Observer: The Newsletter by Dave Meltzer, and half a dozen others ; Superman film series has extensive uses of interviews and facts about living persons from the Superman Homepage; One Hot Minute uses reviews from http://www.robertchristgau.com; Cillian Murphy (displayed on the front page last week) was mentioned above... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your summary looks right to me; it's about thirds. I understand the argument that we should just ignore the rules in some cases or take it case-by-case, but I still think the policy should set an important baseline rule: no controversial or derogatory SPS claims. Cool Hand Luke 05:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit about sources

Cogden, I didn't quite catch the meaning of this: "Material from first-party and third-party primary and secondary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by another reliable source"?

First, I can't work out what a first-party secondary source would be. And if you're saying secondary sources can't be used until another reliable (presumably secondary) source has published, do you mean we must have at least two secondary sources for each point? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be better to just say "sources", but that edit was reverted, but basically, a "first-party" source is a self-published source, while a "third-party" source is a non-self-published source. In either case, you need to be careful: first-party, because the publisher is likely to self-aggrandize, and third-party, because the publisher might have defamatory material.

The two sources do not have to be both secondary. Two independent primary sources would actually be much better. For example, I might say, "According to independent published interviews by Betty B. (2004) and Joe J. (2005), Fred F. was in the pool hall drinking at the time of the killing." Both sources are primary, and since they are independent, this is a good independent check against defamation. It's much better than saying, "According to National Enquirer, Betty B. alleged that Fred F was in the pool hall drinking at the time of the killing." Here, you really only have one independent source: Betty B., and if Betty is lying, Wikipedia might conceivably be sued. National Enquirer is just a secondary source, and is not independent. It's good to have a primary source backed up with a secondary source, but not as good as having two independent, reliable primary sources. Either one, though, should be acceptable to ensure there's no possibility of defamation. COGDEN 00:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I just made a further edit. I think that information about private persons can be supported in one of two ways: (1) if the information is found in a highly reliable, neutral source, such as a respected newspaper or government record, that should be sufficient to protect Wikipedia against a claim of defamation. Similarly, (2) if the information can be corroborated by independent sources, then that should be good enough as well. These independent sources need not be neutral, necessarily, but should be independent. For example, if the same information is given by two different witnesses at a trial, then we should be okay. If it's just one witness, however, and we're talking about a non-public figure, that concerns me, even if there are multiple dependent sources, like a gossip rag quoting a published trial transcript of one witness. On the other hand, if instead of a gossip rag, the Wall Street Journal quoted the published trial transcript, then there's no problem, because it fits under number (1) above, since the Journal is well-respected and neutral. In fact, I think we could safely accept what the Journal says about private persons even if the Journal is the only source for that information. COGDEN 00:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your edit is that it removed the primary/secondary distinction, which it's important to retain. I've seen the Foundation remove material from BLPs that is extremely well-sourced, but to primary sources only. We need secondary sources for anything even slightly contentious. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, here is the issue. Suppose you're writing my BLP, and you can't find much secondary material, so you dig a little deeper, and you come across a court case (good, solid, primary source material) from 20 years ago in which I admitted breaking a window with a stone that I had intended to throw at a boyfriend's head. And you add it to my article -- convicted 20 years ago of criminal damage! That would be a violation of this policy. To retain that material, you would need to find a secondary source — for example, a newspaper — who agreed with you that this information was worth publishing, and who had reported it. We would then use that newspaper as our source. Once we have that secondary source, we could also refer to the trial transcripts, but very carefully, making sure we're not poking and prying into areas no one apart from the Wikipedia author deems interesting. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Even an old newspaper account of a minor incident from 20 years ago, unless shown to be relevant to the current notability of a person by a secondary source reviewing their career (in that case the newspaper would actually be primary), would probably not be admissible. The BLP threshold for inclusion is quite high. Crum375 (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, true. Even if a mainstream newspaper reported it, if it was a long time ago and not deemed relevant to the subject's life now, it could still be excluded. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. That is the spirit of this policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. There's the additional issue that whatever you say about the private person has to be relevant to their notability. That's independent of the type of source.

As to sources, however, I think corroboration is much more important here than secondariness. If you have 10 secondary sources all based on a single primary source of a defamatory rumor, that's almost as bad as just citing the original rumor. But if you have 10 primary sources, each of them consisting of eye-witnesses or journalists who did independent research and verification, then that's good. If you have 10 independent primary sources, and each primary source has a secondary source, that's not much of an improvement. If a source is 100% secondary, adding no independently-corroborated information, I think it should have zero weight as far as avoiding defamation is concerned. A truly secondary source is essentially just repeating rumor. Unless a journalist has done some sort of independent primary corroborative investigation, I think it has zero weight. So there should be at least some primariness in the corroborative source (i.e., the corroborative source should not be merely derivative).

As to the example above of a 20 year old court case, I think that is covered by my edit. This would just be one uncorroborated source. Plus, it would be irrelevant to the notability. COGDEN 18:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources again

Sorry AEM, I said I'd get back to you about this earlier, and I forgot. I'm not sure you addressed the last point I posted, which was that the policies already incorporate the idea that edits that are not challenged or likely to be challenged actually don't need a source. So if you find a well-known website about people's batting averages that's maintained by one person, and if it really is the best source, it's not likely to be challenged so long as the edit is innocuous. The important point is: if it were challenged, you would need to find a non-self-published source. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That was my initial reaction back in October when we first hammered out this arrangement: "The flat rule we have now is fine because content could only be removed if someone objects, and if someone [objects] it's obviously controversial enough that we [should] demand a reliable source." User:WAS 4.250 claimed that it wasn't true: that people were removing non-controversial claims just because the policy says so.

I actually doubt that happens very much, and such useless nit-picking apparently doesn't even occur in featured articles, but I don't see the problem with explicitly stating the de facto rule outlined above. Non-controversial (non-derrogatory) claims are fine in practice. What if we added that editor removal of an SPS-backed claim should be regarded as evidence that the claim is controversial (and can't be supported by self-published sources)? Cool Hand Luke 07:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen cases where wiki policy is used to defend an attack article because they detest the subject of the BLP and or the editor making the edit. I think there are far more agenda driven editors than anyone wants to admit. The only solution that I can think of is for Arbcom to decide these matters in cases that involve a BLP. : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not an option, as Arbcom doesn't make decisions on the content of an article. They only make decisions about the conduct of editors. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I did address the point, and said so, and Cool Hand Luke said the same thing, and... but heck, I'll say it again, and again, and again, since it's important. Perfectly innocuous article information such as basketball statistics absolutely does need a source. I know next to nothing about basketball, but if I see a featured article candidate say that Michael Jordan scored 67 points against Philadelphia in 1999, I will not challenge the numbers themselves, but will, in perfectly good faith, demand a source, because it's detailed and specific information that we need to be able to look up. When an anonymous IP address changes that number to 69, we need to be able to check if that change is right or wrong. If that is what the policy is - if self-published non-contentious non-derogatory expert information is not challenged in good faith, it should stay - then the policy should say so. It needs to say so because the rest of this policy has a completely different spirit, it says "should be removed immediately and without discussion", right in the introduction, in bold. If you want to say that, if no one can in good faith challenge the veracity of the information that we can use it, then we're fine, and I would be happy. That's all I want. Do you agree? That basketball statistics web site used in Michael Jordan is, according to Sports Illustrated, who should know, the single best source; finding a non-self-published source would be using something other than the single best source, which is clearly not making the encyclopedia better. But those Bobby Eaton sites, however, are quite possibly simply not replaceable, because of the nature of the article subject - the New York Times simply does not publish results of professional wrestling matches. There are dozens of excellent articles like that, where the best sources are self-published expert sources, I have been listing them all over this page now. It needs to be in policy that this is correct, we can't have our best articles be at the mercy of someone who is pretending to enforce policy, but actually merely doesn't like the article subject or the editor, as Albion writes, above. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You have (speaking of AEM) stumbled upon one of the paradoxes that we have yet to work out: Not all information has the same value. In simplified form Wikipedia carries two types of information, call one “hard”, and the other “soft”. Hard information is that information that could, if abused, hurt living people (mostly indirectly). It is the manipulation of hard information, done to achieve a particular end, that most of our rules are designed to guard against, the rule that you have a problem with and would like to see ended is one such case. The second type, soft, is that information that probably will not hurt anybody if manipulated, doing so might burse some egos, but in most cases little more. Under our current rules, soft information takes a backseat to the protection of hard information, even though soft information exceeds the volume of hard.

Unfortunately, language has some limitations, and writing rules that would protect hard while unshackling soft is something that I have yet to see anyone do. Instead we write rules that protect the hard, while assuming, and maybe wrongly, those rules will be applied using sound editorial judgment. In the end that is what we rely upon: sound editorial judgment. Try as we might, it is unlikely that anyone here will come up with a rule that would remove the need to apply intelligence when making decisions. In the end you cannot dictate sound judgment; that is left up to the human sitting at the keyboard, and if they are either brain-dead or take it upon themselves to be jerks, I am not sure that we can write anything different that would safeguard against such people, without opening ourselves to worse things. What we can do, and must do, is write rules that would keep people from using Wikipedia as a vehicle to hurt other human beings with.

In the end the problem really is language, and its limitations. How do you write rules that are simple enough in form so that the average person can understand them, and yet achieve two opposing ends, protecting hard will freeing soft? How can we write a rule that takes the place of sound judgment? I don’t think we can. Brimba (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You're making up your own words instead of using the words that others are using, but you're saying the same thing we are. "Controversial, contentious, defamatory" is what we, and the policy, call "information that could, if abused, hurt living people". That should have much stricter rules than "information that probably will not hurt anybody". I think our language is better, because it is well defined - "controversial, contentious" means something there is a controversy about, "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention"[7], "defamatory" means "injurious, slanderous, libelous".[8] If there is information that could hurt living people it is probably defamatory, but certainly at least contentious or controversial. That's exactly what we're saying. Of course there is still a need for judgment as to whether any given piece of information is contentious, but we should at least put it in the policy that this is what we need to make a judgment about. Right now the policy says we need to judge whether something is self-published, and if so, exclude it. But that's not right, is it? What we really need to judge is whether something is "self-published information that could hurt living people". Well, let's say that. It shouldn't be as hard as it is made out to be to actually say what we do. There is still plenty of need for sound judgment it just should be judgment about the right thing. Let's have it say what we do. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to make it two sentences, using your language as well, by the way, that explains the point more. How about this?

Self-published sources should never be used for controversial, defamatory, or otherwise unverifiable material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). Self-published sources are not sufficient for information that could hurt living people.

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought I was more clear that what it appears I was. I’ll see if I can rephrase things to better convey my meaning, which is only tangently connected to what you got out of it. At the moment I am not quite sure how to do that. Brimba 04:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

New sentence

I'd like to add the following (or something similar) in the intro. section:

"Despite the name of this policy, some of it (such as the section on privacy) applies also to article subjects who have died, particularly where the death was recent."

I had hoped this sentence wasn't necessary, but I have seen too many discussions on talk pages and AfD's, and edits, that effectively said: (I'm exaggerating, but only a little) "Subject died two minutes ago, so WP:BLP no longer applies, and I am putting the libelous, scandelous material that another editor removed back into the article." Thoughts, reactions? UnitedStatesian 14:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Two thoughts, actually, one technical, one more towards motivation.

Technical: What is "recent"? A day? A year? A decade? In the context of human history, anything less than a century or so can be considered recent; there are still people being hunted for World War II war crimes, for example.[9] The living/not-living boundary is generally more clear.
Motivation: How do we justify whatever limit we choose? When this has been brought up before, backers generally say something like "think of the possible effects on the deceased person's children and relatives" - but does that then mean that people who don't have children and relatives are therefore somehow fair game? And there isn't any reason to say that the effects on someone's relatives will diminish with the passage of any specific length of time. There are plenty of distant relatives and descendants of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings who still feel rather strongly about speculation about their suggested relationship; and there are at least thousands, possibly a billion Muslims with no blood relation at all, who will go even farther at any perceived slight of Muhammad. [10]. The motivation for being more careful about living people is again, more clear - we don't just hurt their feelings, or affect them indirectly, we can hurt their actual lives, directly. Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-04-23/Wikidetainment It's a lot easier to justify that bright line. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives